31 minutes ago, taestell said:

Verizon doesn't have any influence on who I call or who calls me over their network. Ford doesn't have any influence on what roads I take or what I haul using my vehicle. Facebook, however, exerts massive control over what content people see on their platform, what gets boosted/amplified and what gets buried.

 

Facebook was the *means* for much of the organizing for Jan 6th.  If Verizon didn't exist, people would text using T-Mobile or another carrier.  If that Ford wasn't there, a robber would have just picked a different get-away car.

 

If Facebook didn't exist, where would these online organizers go?  Twitter? lol

1 hour ago, taestell said:

Verizon doesn't have any influence on who I call or who calls me over their network. Ford doesn't have any influence on what roads I take or what I haul using my vehicle. Facebook, however, exerts massive control over what content people see on their platform, what gets boosted/amplified and what gets buried.

 

I think what Facbeook does is more like Verizon screening spam calls. Facebook is currently set up to give people what they want to read. It's really no different than Spotify giving people a playlist they think they'll like. What people at Facebook want to do is use that concept of curation as a means to censor political speech they disagree with. It's dangerous territory - so far Facebook's leadership has exercised a degree of restraint with what they censor. The c-suite knows they could quickly alienate their userbase and cause an exodus.

 

And with "Truth Social" on the horizon (anybody else get into DWAC in time to clean up last week?) - Facebook might already see the writing on the wall.

2 hours ago, Ram23 said:

It's really no different than Spotify giving people a playlist they think they'll like.

Gee I really do like this mix of racist, anti-immigrant, white-nationalist and anti-democratic songs I'm hearing!   Play me more!  

 

 

"Truth Social" barely qualifies as a "social network". It's a Mastodon instance.

22 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Facebook was the *means* for much of the organizing for Jan 6th.  If Verizon didn't exist, people would text using T-Mobile or another carrier.  If that Ford wasn't there, a robber would have just picked a different get-away car.

 

If Facebook didn't exist, where would these online organizers go?  Twitter? lol

 

There's places.   There's also decentralized encrypted apps.

 

Only the C team trusts FB with secure information.  It's for networking, not acting.

 

 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

"Truth Social" barely qualifies as a "social network". It's a Mastodon instance.

 

They're getting sued for not living up to the terms of the open source license (AGPL) that Mastodon is released under.

 

Also, in the vein of discussing open sourcing, what's leaking out about what the Facebook algorithm does and doesn't boost makes me even more sure that the algorithm needs to be open sourced so that people can see, understand, and debate what is being served up to users.  This should be an idea with bipartisan support- if Facebook is boosting hateful or extreme content, we can all see that.  If its giving a boost to the politics of one side over the other, we can all see that.  If its boosting misinformation, we can all see that.  Open source the algorithm!

43 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

There's places.   There's also decentralized encrypted apps.

 

Only the C team trusts FB with secure information.  It's for networking, not acting.

 

 

 

 

o rilly?

 

wat places?

 

sedition dot com?

 

or herrtrump dot ru maybe?

 

and ...

 

but ...

 

more so ...

 

how do you even know this, hoss?

 

🤮

39 minutes ago, X said:

They're getting sued for not living up to the terms of the open source license (AGPL) that Mastodon is released under.

 

They aren't being sued, the founder of the open source platform just has Trump Derangement Syndrome. In the article I read, his ire is almost palpable.

 

To summarize:

 

They claim Truth Social is using their (open source) software, based only on a couple screenshots posted to Twitter by left-wing political accounts. (Doubt)

 

They claim it is a violation of the license to use the code but not make the source code available to users. (Understood)

 

But - the platform isn't even available yet, and isn't planned to be released until 2022. There are no users, so no users need access to the source code.

 

Once Truth Social is published, they could comply with the license and make the code available. Seems like no big deal.

 

 

You're correct that they aren't being sued, yet.  The founder of Mastodon has stated that they are consulting their legal council.  I had another instance of a GPL violation that made the news this week in my head.

 

That said, pretty much anyone who's looked at the thing is saying it looks exactly like Mastodon, so you can doubt it, but it is extremely likely that it is.  And while they aren't launching till 2022, they are going to be beta testing anytime now (and at least briefly were).  Beta testers would be considered users. 

 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/trumps-truth-social-beta-site-violates-open-source-license/

If UrbanOhio hid the "Powered by Invision Community" text at the bottom of the page, it would still be pretty easy for someone familiar with that software to look at UO and tell what forum software it was using.

On 10/25/2021 at 11:26 AM, Ram23 said:

 

I think this sort of behavior is nonsensical and immature - people use cell phones and texting to do bad stuff all the time, do Verizon employees work themselves into a tizzy over it? Do Ford employees fume when someone uses a Ford as a getaway car?

 

These comparisons are not relevant are are nonsense!

17 hours ago, X said:

You're correct that they aren't being sued, yet.  The founder of Mastodon has stated that they are consulting their legal council.  I had another instance of a GPL violation that made the news this week in my head.

 

That said, pretty much anyone who's looked at the thing is saying it looks exactly like Mastodon, so you can doubt it, but it is extremely likely that it is.  And while they aren't launching till 2022, they are going to be beta testing anytime now (and at least briefly were).  Beta testers would be considered users. 

 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/trumps-truth-social-beta-site-violates-open-source-license/

 

They weren't testing it though - some folks found a back door to the in-development version. They were, in essence, hackers - not users. They are were no more of a user than a bank robber is a customer.

 

And all we have as evidence that there was indeed a back door are a couple of screenshots - all of which were posted by left-wing political advocates.

 

This whole thing reeks. And between the billions of dollars to be made via social media and the political repercussions of Trump having his own network, I suspect foul play on the part of the folks with the most to lose.

20 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

o rilly?

 

wat places?

 

sedition dot com?

 

or herrtrump dot ru maybe?

 

and ...

 

but ...

 

more so ...

 

how do you even know this, hoss?

 

🤮

 

It's not hard to know, as long as people believe you're pro-2A.   A lot of the very serious folks won't knowingly speak in the presence of anyone who isn't.   Not about anything illegal necessarily, just about policy.  So I'm sure the feds know about all of them, and I'm equally sure there's those that they don't.

 

I knew people were going to move to the main demo on the 6th down to the Capitol, it wasn't uncommon knowledge.   Didn't know any were going to break in.    Though I'm not sure a lot of them knew they were going to either.   

55 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

They weren't testing it though - some folks found a back door to the in-development version. They were, in essence, hackers - not users. They are were no more of a user than a bank robber is a customer.

 

And all we have as evidence that there was indeed a back door are a couple of screenshots - all of which were posted by left-wing political advocates.

 

This whole thing reeks. And between the billions of dollars to be made via social media and the political repercussions of Trump having his own network, I suspect foul play on the part of the folks with the most to lose.

 

Everything I have seen was that the site was live- and that is when people signed up for accounts and became users.  I haven't seen anything reported that these people hacked anything at all.  The site was live on the internet, and people used it as it was technically intended to be used- signing up for accounts and posting things.  They just weren't the people Trump wanted signing up, posting things that they he didn't like.

On 10/20/2021 at 12:22 PM, Ram23 said:

They might just go with "Meta" which would be super lame, IMO. But Zuckerberg has always seemed to me like a pretty lame dude with no taste, so I wouldn't be shocked if it's a watered down, cringey name like that.

I was thinking someone had nailed it in this thread. Congrats, hope you placed a bet. 
 

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/facebook-announces-changing-company-meta/story?id=80683908
 

Facebook announces it is changing company name to Meta

What can the far left and the far right agree on?  Everyone hates Facebook's "metaverse" vision of the future.

 

==================================================================

 

The unapologetically socialist and militantly atheist Jacobin magazine hates it:

 

Facebook Is Now Meta. And It Wants to Monetize Your Whole Existence.

Mark Zuckerberg’s turn toward the “metaverse” claims to put an extra digital layer on top of the real world. But Facebook’s new Meta brand isn’t augmenting your reality — it just wants to suck more money out of it.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/10/mark-zuckerberg-meta-facebook-rebrand-metaverse

 

==================================================================

 

The notionally-Catholic right-wing conspiracy-theorist swamp spigot Crisis (which I call "readings from the gospel according to Trump") hates it:

 

Christians, Beware the Metaverse

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/christians-beware-the-metaverse

On 10/25/2021 at 2:48 PM, Ram23 said:

And with "Truth Social" on the horizon (anybody else get into DWAC in time to clean up last week?) - Facebook might already see the writing on the wall.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/06/trump-spac-investigated-by-federal-regulators-including-sec.html

 

Quote

Trump SPAC under investigation by federal regulators, including SEC

 

Incredible.

Interesting that in "Meta's" first consumer brand marketing campaign they use a work on permanent display at the Cleveland Museum of Art without any attribution.

 

https://www.adweek.com/social-marketing/meta-kicks-off-first-consumer-brand-marketing-campaign/

 

The work, by Henri Rousseau, is old enough that it is in the public domain.

 

https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1949.186

47 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/06/trump-spac-investigated-by-federal-regulators-including-sec.html

 

Incredible.

 

Non story:

 

"...the investigation does not mean that the SEC has concluded that anyone violated the law or that the SEC has a negative opinion of DWAC or any person, event, or security."

 

DWAC was trending on social media ahead of its big gains, my guess is the SEC is looking into it like they looked into GameStop and other WSB shenanigans. If there's one thing they don't want, it's the everyman making too much money on the stock market. They want us to feel like we're winning, but not that much.

2 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

Non story:

 

"...the investigation does not mean that the SEC has concluded that anyone violated the law or that the SEC has a negative opinion of DWAC or any person, event, or security."

 

DWAC was trending on social media ahead of its big gains, my guess is the SEC is looking into it like they looked into GameStop and other WSB shenanigans. If there's one thing they don't want, it's the everyman making too much money on the stock market. They want us to feel like we're winning, but not that much.

 

When in doubt, go the conspiracy theory route.

 

 

 

i guess he got ahead of himself:

 

 

 

08-23-22

The metaverse is as dead as Zuckerberg’s cartoon eyes

 

No matter how realistic you make the avatars, the Big Bang for the metaverse needs a user experience that technology won’t deliver for a very long time.

 

 

more:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90781259/the-metaverse-is-as-dead-as-zuckerbergs-cartoon-eyes

 

Facebook stock just dropped 22% overnight.  The stock has declined 70% from $378 in October 2021 to $100 in October 2022.  It's now trading where it was in much of 2016.    

Don't give Musk any ideas. Actually, wait, let him buy the company as well and shut down operations. Meta today is not Facebook of 2004. Both need to die; too much of society just can't handle social media.

 

All that aside, why on earth is Zukenberg so gungho about creating the next Matrix and willing to spend tens of billions (hundreds eventually?) to get there? Is there pent up demand for humans to grow even more isolated than we are already?

 

And even if people were to use the software, what tangible benefits are there? I can see gamers enjoying a more immersive experience, porn addicts too. But are people really going to be using it for college courses, to see an opera from 5,000 miles away, to re-enact great battles, to interact with long-lost cousins or family shut-ins, etc? Basically all that s-hit in Ready Player One.

 

The metaverse just seems so defeatist. 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 20222 yr by TBideon

Right now, brands are only in the metaverse because other brands are, or they have digital marketing teams with too much time and money on their hands. The actual consumer demand to want to meet brands there is practically zero. Maybe it will pick up, but at the moment there’s nothing behind the veil of Oz. 

28 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Don't give Musk any ideas. Actually, wait, let him buy the company as well and shut down operations. Meta today is not Facebook of 2004. Both need to die; too much of society just can't handle social media.

 

 

Anybody who was over the age of 14 or so at the time could tell stuff like AOL or ugh, WebTV was vastly inferior to the rest of the internet since all the idiots managed to get on them and (especially) were allowed to upload.

 

Without that kind of access they would just be sitting there watching TV and movies unable to exert any influence. 

Edited October 27, 20222 yr by GCrites80s

29 minutes ago, roman totale XVII said:

Right now, brands are only in the metaverse because other brands are, or they have digital marketing teams with too much time and money on their hands. The actual consumer demand to want to meet brands there is practically zero. Maybe it will pick up, but at the moment there’s nothing behind the veil of Oz. 

 

I hated having to deal with Facebook pages for my businesses since the people who wanted to interact with you the most on there were the least likely to patronize them since they just sat around on Facebook all day. All these outsiders like landlords would insist on big Facebook presences not understanding that it was a total net negative on time besides creating a basic page as a reference and for scheduling events. 

I think presentation has a lot to do with these challenges. The public needs to be excited about next level innovations (even if they aren't as advanced as they let on).

 

Zukerberg does not have the showmanship needed to make consumers and developers interested in the various Horizon platforms and metaverse as a whole. He's no Jobs. He's not even a Musk.

 

I also think the lack of goodwill is part of the problem. Save for MAGA loons and Russian/Pakistani data and troll farms, Facebook doesn't seem to have much overt support these days, regardless of its rebranding. 

 

Does the company even have a Board of Directors at this point? I can't believe they've been radio silent about this guy's misplaced vision and inability to articulate it.

A lot of prominent conservatives activists and authors are suddenly finding that their FB posts are much more visible, I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is happening right as Elon is taking over Twitter.

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

A lot of prominent conservatives activists and authors are suddenly finding that their FB posts are much more visible, I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is happening right as Elon is taking over Twitter.

 

And I'm sure there's good solid data to back this up.

Who the f@$k still uses Facebook? I haven't had one in five years and I was the original generation that had Facebook. I really don't know many people left between 30-40 that still have Facebook, or if they do they never use it.  

Edited October 27, 20222 yr by KFM44107

2 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Who the f@$k still uses Facebook? I haven't had one in five years and I was the original generation that had Facebook. I really don't know many people left between 30-40 that still have Facebook, or if they do they never use it.  

 

My circles run from late 30s to early 60s and I see a lot of people still posting across that range.   More post 50 though.  Which is why it's been stupid to the point of fiduciary malpractice to apply late millennial-Gen Z "community standards".  Especially when the users aren't the customers, they are the product.

5 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Who the f@$k still uses Facebook? I haven't had one in five years and I was the original generation that had Facebook. I really don't know many people left between 30-40 that still have Facebook, or if they do they never use it.  

 

Guilty.  But I view it as a way to keep in touch with somewhat "distant" friends and relatives and old classmates (people I might be interested in what they're doing out of curiosity, but who I would rarely pick up the phone and call).  For that it's been great.  I don't do business or networking or anything on FB and I rarely post -- and it if it went away, not a big deal.

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

My circles run from late 30s to early 60s and I see a lot of people still posting across that range.   More post 50 though.  Which is why it's been stupid to the point of fiduciary malpractice to apply late millennial-Gen Z "community standards".  Especially when the users aren't the customers, they are the product.

 

Maybe the "community standards" are really the standards of the advertisers, then.  What kind of platform do they want their product to be seen on and associated with?

52 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Who the f@$k still uses Facebook? 

 

I just attended a fantastic out-of-town reunion that I never would have heard about if not for Facebook.  All of those people are good people so they're not annoying on Facebook.   

 

As for "community standards", I have blocked about 15 people who just can't shut up about politics  For example, some girl I know from college started dating a Native American guy and now thinks that she, too, is Native American.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, X said:

 

Maybe the "community standards" are really the standards of the advertisers, then.  What kind of platform do they want their product to be seen on and associated with?

 

Much like how the newspapers moved to the middle once department stores, supermarkets, car dealers and insurance companies started advertising a lot.

16 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

I just attended a fantastic out-of-town reunion that I never would have heard about if not for Facebook.  All of those people are good people so they're not annoying on Facebook.   

 

As for "community standards", I have blocked about 15 people who just can't shut up about politics  For example, some girl I know from college started dating a Native American guy and now thinks that she, too, is Native American.  

 

 

Ancestry by injection?

23 hours ago, Lazarus said:

Facebook stock just dropped 22% overnight.  The stock has declined 70% from $378 in October 2021 to $100 in October 2022.  It's now trading where it was in much of 2016.    

 

And I was among those who bailed.  Should have done so earlier.  I'd held it for many years so I didn't take that much of a bath, but certainly my compound annual returns on it were anemic when annualized over the 5+ years I held.

 

And I say this as someone who still uses Facebook extensively.

 

22 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

I hated having to deal with Facebook pages for my businesses since the people who wanted to interact with you the most on there were the least likely to patronize them since they just sat around on Facebook all day. All these outsiders like landlords would insist on big Facebook presences not understanding that it was a total net negative on time besides creating a basic page as a reference and for scheduling events. 

 

That's the logic of the growth monster at work.  "Facebook is great for A, B, and C, so now we also need to make it D, E, and F to suck people even deeper into it."

 

Except that it was inherently good for A, B, and C, and nowhere near as inherently useful for D, E, and F.

 

But even today, that "basic page as a reference and for scheduling events" for businesses is the primary value of Facebook to me as a consumer.  I like Facebook pages actually maintained by businesses better than either their Google maps/directory entries, and the ability to see posts and events in one organized, largely-uniform fashion is easier and more efficient for me than having to go through dozens of individual Web sites (which I simply don't have time to do).

 

Pages, Groups, and Events are the real value of Facebook to me.  That's the core product.  And I should have known to sell because the metaverse distraction was clearly beginning to mean disinvestment in that core product.

 

18 hours ago, E Rocc said:

A lot of prominent conservatives activists and authors are suddenly finding that their FB posts are much more visible, I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is happening right as Elon is taking over Twitter.

 

I actually think the algorithm has been tweaked a bit to drive engagement through controversy, though perhaps they'd frame it as exposing people to content from outside their comfort zones/across the aisle.  A lot of my progressive friends complain about the amount of conservative content they see, which I never see.  One of my very left-wing friends complained about the amount of ads or sponsored content for Turning Point USA and Prager U they were seeing.  Meanwhile, the algorithm keeps boosting the most in-your-face, patronizing woke sanctimony for me.  And this isn't a privacy-settings issue; while I've asked the app not to track me on mobile (via iOS privacy settings) and use a tracker blocker on my PC, my likes and group memberships on Facebook itself should be easily enough for any halfwit algorithm to know my political and religious leanings.

 

18 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Who the f@$k still uses Facebook? I haven't had one in five years and I was the original generation that had Facebook. I really don't know many people left between 30-40 that still have Facebook, or if they do they never use it.  

 

I mean, how do you know who still uses it and doesn't if you're off of it?

 

I was OG Facebook generation, too (undergrad class of 2004, I signed up during the mandatory .edu-address days).  And I'm still very active and a large number of my friends are, too, particularly the other parents at my kids' school--so a group of generally similar-aged people, that 30-45 age group.  My board gaming group has its Internet home there, too.

 

18 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Guilty.  But I view it as a way to keep in touch with somewhat "distant" friends and relatives and old classmates (people I might be interested in what they're doing out of curiosity, but who I would rarely pick up the phone and call).  For that it's been great.  I don't do business or networking or anything on FB and I rarely post -- and it if it went away, not a big deal.

 

17 hours ago, Lazarus said:

I just attended a fantastic out-of-town reunion that I never would have heard about if not for Facebook.  All of those people are good people so they're not annoying on Facebook.   

 

I should have said earlier that this is another core function I use it for--planning HS Class of 2000 reunions and such.

 

Good for maintaining friendships (or at least not letting them completely disintegrate from lack of all contact), but definitely not for forming them.

11 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I actually think the algorithm has been tweaked a bit to drive engagement through controversy, though perhaps they'd frame it as exposing people to content from outside their comfort zones/across the aisle.  A lot of my progressive friends complain about the amount of conservative content they see, which I never see. 

 

 

Yeah Zuckerberg knows what I find irritating and keeps lobbing it at me.  I have blocked many things but they got rid of the "I find it offensive" rationale.  So you have to do the next-best-thing, which I think is "ad is repetitive". 

 

The reals might be operating semi-independently of the rest of the feed. I keep getting Air Force promotional content (exotic jet take-offs, fly-bys, etc.), girls playing guitar covers, mid-20s female comedians who aren't funny, and dudes walking up to old rich guys asking them how they got rich. 

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Ancestry by injection?

 

It's wild seeing acquaintances go off-the-rails.  It's like you aren't fooling anybody but nobody's just going to say it to them. 

 

 

 

Is everyone getting girls playing guitar videos or just guitar players. I get a ton but of course shopping for gear is going to get me flagged as one.

11 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

The reals might be operating semi-independently of the rest of the feed. I keep getting Air Force promotional content (exotic jet take-offs, fly-bys, etc.), girls playing guitar covers, mid-20s female comedians who aren't funny, and dudes walking up to old rich guys asking them how they got rich. 

 

The Reels do drive low-effort engagement--I do admit I get sucked in.

 

I get cute animal videos, especially bears because bears are the cutest animals.

 

And FWIW, the main, non-Reel feed seems to know I like bear stuff, too, since earlier this month, I got promoted content for Fat Bear Week at Katmai National Park, which was definitely relevant to my interests, so the algorithm got that one right.  (Or both algorithms, if you're right that the Reels and Feed algorithms operate independently.  Not 100% sure about that.  Though some other things I get on Reels do make me wonder.)

19 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Who the f@$k still uses Facebook? I haven't had one in five years and I was the original generation that had Facebook. I really don't know many people left between 30-40 that still have Facebook, or if they do they never use it.  

My business is quite reliant on the advertising power of FB because my target market is 40-70 y.o.

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

And I was among those who bailed.  Should have done so earlier.  I'd held it for many years so I didn't take that much of a bath, but certainly my compound annual returns on it were anemic when annualized over the 5+ years I held.

 

And I say this as someone who still uses Facebook extensively.

 

 

That's the logic of the growth monster at work.  "Facebook is great for A, B, and C, so now we also need to make it D, E, and F to suck people even deeper into it."

 

Except that it was inherently good for A, B, and C, and nowhere near as inherently useful for D, E, and F.

 

But even today, that "basic page as a reference and for scheduling events" for businesses is the primary value of Facebook to me as a consumer.  I like Facebook pages actually maintained by businesses better than either their Google maps/directory entries, and the ability to see posts and events in one organized, largely-uniform fashion is easier and more efficient for me than having to go through dozens of individual Web sites (which I simply don't have time to do).

 

Pages, Groups, and Events are the real value of Facebook to me.  That's the core product.  And I should have known to sell because the metaverse distraction was clearly beginning to mean disinvestment in that core product.

 

 

I actually think the algorithm has been tweaked a bit to drive engagement through controversy, though perhaps they'd frame it as exposing people to content from outside their comfort zones/across the aisle.  A lot of my progressive friends complain about the amount of conservative content they see, which I never see.  One of my very left-wing friends complained about the amount of ads or sponsored content for Turning Point USA and Prager U they were seeing.  Meanwhile, the algorithm keeps boosting the most in-your-face, patronizing woke sanctimony for me.  And this isn't a privacy-settings issue; while I've asked the app not to track me on mobile (via iOS privacy settings) and use a tracker blocker on my PC, my likes and group memberships on Facebook itself should be easily enough for any halfwit algorithm to know my political and religious leanings.

 

 

I mean, how do you know who still uses it and doesn't if you're off of it?

 

I was OG Facebook generation, too (undergrad class of 2004, I signed up during the mandatory .edu-address days).  And I'm still very active and a large number of my friends are, too, particularly the other parents at my kids' school--so a group of generally similar-aged people, that 30-45 age group.  My board gaming group has its Internet home there, too.

 

 

 

I should have said earlier that this is another core function I use it for--planning HS Class of 2000 reunions and such.

 

Good for maintaining friendships (or at least not letting them completely disintegrate from lack of all contact), but definitely not for forming them.

I reconnected with a lot of people I knew back in school days, stayed somewhat in touch with the old bar crowd from when I was working, and have developed a couple new "circles" from my Browns group and science fiction groups ("Sad Puppies, if you know anything about SF fandom).  Some political as well, of course.

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

The Reels do drive low-effort engagement--I do admit I get sucked in.

 

I get cute animal videos, especially bears because bears are the cutest animals.

 

And FWIW, the main, non-Reel feed seems to know I like bear stuff, too, since earlier this month, I got promoted content for Fat Bear Week at Katmai National Park, which was definitely relevant to my interests, so the algorithm got that one right.  (Or both algorithms, if you're right that the Reels and Feed algorithms operate independently.  Not 100% sure about that.  Though some other things I get on Reels do make me wonder.)

 

Let's see if it screws up and gives you the other kind of bears

I just got to see an F-22 do some cool maneuvers through an Alpine Valley.  Thanks, Zuck. 

Is anybody else getting a bunch of stuff from last month in their Instagram feed? Instead of saying "You're all caught up" it mixes in a bunch of old stuff instead. Tons of this content is dated too, like promoting live shows that already happened, Halloween stuff and pushing other content I've already seen by now.

I still think that algorithmic timelines are an awful user experience for Instagram or Twitter style social networks. I just want to see a chronological list of posts from the people I've chosen to follow!