erica

talk account

freelance illustrator, designer, and idk buncha stuff

@kuraine's wife

avatar by karu

ascari
Last.FM Recently Played



bark
@bark

i think one of my most cancellable takes is that complaints about "the algorithm" are just complaints about human behaviour. all "the algorithm" does is amplify the way each and every one of us interacts with the internet


bark
@bark

it DOES fucking suck when things you put a ton of effort into don't get attention. it's ANNOYING when throwaway stuff takes off. but

cohost has no “algorithm”, yet the same thing happens here

this write-up of the cohost “vuln” took a while, and i really wanted it to be seen. but it got nowhere near as much attention as this silly rip of QR's passenger information displays — which, sure, took some time, but significantly less than the write-up.

the puppy dog PID is quick to consume, quick to share, and, big plus! sharing it signposts a piece of your identity. i'm a fucking dog and i like trains. share that and i'm immediately telling you something about myself, and i'm also getting a bit of a happy moment whenever someone likes my share of it, since someone's either acknowledging how i'm positioning myself or themselves relating to the post. making it didn't take that much time, and i didn't really expect it to go that far since “the screens at train stations in brisbane” is a pretty local phenomena.

the write-up takes reading and understanding. not actually that much, compared to some other long-form posts, but more than zero. i wanted that one to go far. if people read it and talk about it, i feel like i've done something of value and people are not only enjoying my work but learning from my experience and time. it's got some vaguely interesting technical information, and for anyone who themselves looks for these types of issues a new avenue to explore.

which sounds more likely to take off?

you can make more throwaway things than you can high-effort things

from everyone's favourite tom scott:

... and yes, it absolutely sucks that there are going to be genius-level pieces of work that aren't making it outside of [your network of friends] -- and mediocre work that gets lots of praise because it's from someone well-established. 1

I keep following all those rules I've learned: I make as many things as possible ... every idea you put out there is another roll of the dice. 2

how many silly one-liners can you pump out in a day, if you tried? i mean. don't try, it won't be healthy for you. but how many weeks-long project ideas do you come up with in a day versus silly jokes you can write and post in a couple minutes? if the odds weren't already stacked towards short-form content, and even if the chance of your throwaway work taking off is the same as your high-effort work taking off, which gives you more rolls of the dice?

time can measure effort, but effort often does not predict success. sorry.

people “want” things they can quickly interact with, then move on

it's a single line joke. it's a visual gag. it's not a pages long blog post or a tool they have to download or a place they have to go. tiktok is popular because it's short-form, the barrier to entry is near zero, and “if [the video] sucks, [you can] hit da bricks”. scroll away. thank you, next.

people also want things where sharing or interacting with it signposts, indicates, shows off some part of their identity3. playing a game, reading a blog post... doesn't usually do those things. not to imply that these don't provide value to people — by fucking god, do they provide value — but not the kind of value that social media rewards, by virtue of its role in people's lives. i might have the time of my life playing with your thing, but what makes work take off is word-of-mouth (be it a real mouth or your whisper or megaphone on social media).

a post → 
this is cute/funny/cool → i'll share it
a post → 
this seems pretty good → i'll download it → after a while, this is cute/funny/cool → wait where did i find this again?

i already talked about the role that the silly QR PID plays. maybe i'm projecting, but sharing it lets me tell people about a part of myself i want known. i wanted to turn the effort i'd put into replicating the visual style into a project where you'd get a semi-accurate, visually similar PID with real-time data — if i shared that, it'd get a couple likes. people on cohost aren't from brisbane, they don't want to clone a git repo, npm install, figure out bugs, yada yada yada. what they do wanna see is a cute little post with some puppy dog words and bright colors.

is that bad? is that good? i don't know. that's people. should we, as “a species” be working to rid ourselves of this bias towards quick consumption? probably? i don't know. but if your goal is having your work seen — and not rewiring the brains of the entire human species — i think the take away is clear.

a lot of what we ascribe to “algorithms” is just people

don't get me wrong. there are a looooot of ways that more sinister forms of recommendation schemes go well beyond just reinforcing and amplifying human behaviour. but i think the issues we see brought to the table a lot of the time are just the human behaviour-amplifying ones. considering the exact same things can happen here, happened before social media, happen in real-life social circles, it's hard to see how the computer is doing anything more than This But At Scale™️.

if your recommendation scheme pushes a product you have a commercial relationship with over organic user-created stuff, that sucks. but if people share the PepsiSMTM ad more than your post, because PepsiCoSMUT have more followers, and the literal virus-like exponential growth delivers them more [insert a metric here], was that really the recommendation scheme? it's not like virality didn't exist before “algorithms”, it was just different.

so

a lot of the time i feel like distaste towards the “algorithm” and its effects on how your work is seen by others has nothing to do with the algorithms and much more to do with people's behaviour. people's behaviour, and how it feels to be on the receiving end of the whims and desires of randoms.

to be clear: i've hopped onto twitter a few times since the downfall, and being forced to use the non-chronological timeline has made me leave quite quickly: but not before scrolling through for a while. i hate seeing random stuff. i want to see what my friends are doing. but even when i'm scrolling through a chronological timeline, i'm mostly consuming the short-form content and scrolling past long-form stuff. i get sort of meta-angry when i realise that i'm just looking at “other customers also bought these tweets” because i step back and notice that it's often shallow content made to appeal to all the things i've mentioned.


the irony, of course, is that this post has taken a decent amount of time and effort to write. an hour! but while getting ready to post it, i realised how little appeal the block of text has. so now there's images, some css that's even “reactive”; just so that it's harder to skip over in your timeline. time is effort is not appeal is not success. we'll see how it goes.


  1. https://youtu.be/3tO3h9APNbM?t=387

  2. https://youtu.be/9LZEZ5QuyzM?t=333

  3. again, from tom, but i don't wanna go find the quote. sorry.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @bark's post:

social media algorithms are not neutral tho, they have rules and imbalances that are added by people other than those users

edit: that said, your later chosts are a pretty good counter

The Algorithm, famously not created by anyone for any particular reason, and also there's only one of them, which it is possible to opt out of and presto no more algorithms in your life

(in case it isn't clear I 100% agree and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about discourse)

in reply to @bark's post:

also, the algorithm makes a great target. It's unpopular to say "viewers don't watch my long videos because their attention span is too short" (you can't blame viewers), so instead have to say "my long videos don't perform well." But The Algorithm allows the to blame someone: "viewers don't watch my long videos because The Algorithm doesn't promote them." People love having something to blame!

or "viewers are being recommended this popular and/or disturbing thing, but they don't REALLY want to see it, and if it weren't for The Algorithm then no one would possibly want it." easier to blame an external, abstract thing than reckon with, let alone try to change, the reality of what people are drawn to

did we all collectively forget how susceptible humans are to morbid curiosity? and if seeing accidents made more accidents happen because of rubbernecking (oh wait, it does), can we really be surprised that there's a chain reaction

my first arc as a tech and games journalist and editor taught me that algorithms are real but playing to the consumption patterns of the audience in any given platform or channel is the real skill for getting stuff to take off on the internet. Whenever I see someone dismayed at how their 3000 word post does I ask them how often they read something like that and it usually gets the point across.

(oops i accidentally wrote an essay. tl;dr i agree.)

i think "The Algorithm" and "peoples' behavior" are pretty closely connected. to a degree, absolutely people have always had kinda short attention spans and it's been hard to get them to check stuff out. but people have used the internet A Lot in the last few years, to the point that it's more weird to not use the internet (at least from our perspective as the Terminally Online), and i think the effect that the internet has had on peoples' attention spans and desire to actually look at things is very real. human behavior, a lot of the time, can be traced to what the state of society is like at that point in its existence.

algorithms, short-form (and a lot of the times, relatively unstimulating or brief hits of stimulation) media consumption, significantly higher text-based (for some people, text-exclusive) communication, high tech cell phones being standard... all of these things are connected in explaining why human behavior is the way that it is currently.

that being said, a lot of people also just expect the things that they put effort into to take off just because they put effort into it, and that's simply just not the way the world works. effort and consideration is simply just a slightly higher percentage that the thing you put out there will find reach organically. simply, there is just so much content being created every nanosecond of every day that there's absolutely no way, algorithm or not, you can ever hope to make something a guaranteed "hit" with whatever your audience is intended to be. and that's just the hard part of creating anything, really. if you want to make something with the intention of it "hitting", you pretty much have to compose it in a way that is digestible to the average feed-scroller, and even that isn't really a guarantee.

this is why i try to create less things for "audiences" and more to just put it out there as something i can reference to people when relevant. maybe that will lead to slow growth that eventually becomes something bigger, or maybe it doesn't. of course, as my career pretty much hinges on "being perceived", it does feel bad when that doesn't happen. but that's pretty much just how it is right now in general.

i think this is a really nice perspective and weighs a bit further into the "is it bad that this is how people are?" than i was able to. i think i've tried to position myself to create things less for audiences and more for, well. me, but me now and future me, and it's a lot nicer.

i saw something funny in the feed™ a few days ago, that google was afraid "shrots were going to take over youtube" (and push out long-form content)

at the same time, they have been pushing shorts everywhere, sticking them in the related videos feed, etc. and that's not really any algorithm stuff, that's a direct design decision to push people there. i assume it's because it's easier to shove ads between constant short-form garbage

good post. there's a lot of stuff like this that could be said about how platforms are built and what behaviors they're meant to bring out, and how we treat them overall

yeah that's a nuance i couldn't/didn't address here.

i've ended up watching a lot of youtube shorts in what was usually a long video watching time (i.e. "pretending to go to sleep"). is that cause they've been pushed at me? sure. but at the same time, the way i'm interacting with them (never using the tiktok-style feed, only ever clicking videos that i like the look of when they appear within the row in the main feed, and Very grumbly-y closing shorts that annoy me) is quite different. so i don't get the ads, i don't get the "first 2 seconds" effect, and so on.

i've formed almost the counter-habit of intentionally ignoring or clicking away from anything that strikes me as having been designed super hard to appeal.

i guess a way i can actually make a point here is by saying: root cause analysis is harder than you think

(on gógl and shorts) Isn't this just a "humble brag" on their part? Along the lines of LLM companies "worrying" that their stuff is everywhere now, or a rich guy being concerned with how successful his last business is?

i can see it as a little bit of both, given that "short-form video content" is handled by multiple things (tiktok, instagram, most other things) but youtube was always the site where long-form videos would go

either way it is entirely their own fault

we agree with this quite a bit i think. we've never quite gotten the immense distaste for The Algorithm, because whatever it does it sems to actually tickle our brain correctly. Especially with how we interact with twitter, chronological timeline would make us miss every single post we care about, because we follow a shitload of people.

I wish longform posts (of any media type, text, video, etc) got more traction. Those are the funnest to create and interact with. But I do have a bit of a soft spot for short form stuff

on the chronological thing: as Not Americans, non-chronological displays of things are... kinda important, cause we're in the polar opposite timezone. it's hard to work out how many folks on the "down with algorithms" side of this are american, or in another hegemonic place/timezone. i don't follow enough people on cohost to have it be a problem here, and i always used twitter in chronological anyway, so i'm not sure what i'm saying. but yeah. many a thing to think about

Good post, lot to think about in there.
I generally agree, but I wonder if it's worth thinking about what people are trying to get from a piece of content. Obviously dopamine/brain happy chemicals from most everything, probably more so when people are just browsing for "snack food" type content, but also do those longer posts have multiple points being made or just more words? How cohesive are the points, because a clear theme helps.

All that said I'm bad at that stuff and I feel like I just ramble so 🤷‍♂️

At this point I’m fully convinced “the algorithm” is a boogeyman term, it’s used as an excuse to not reckon with the fact that posting stuff online is dopamine gacha. Like obviously there are documented cases of platform deprioritizing specific content but that’s such a small fraction of what people think “the algorithm” does.
Like the whole “don’t include links!! Algorithm doesn’t like them!!” No, people are just lazy and 96% of them don’t give a shit about your Patreon or PayPal because it’s just another step to take and would rather continue scrolling to see another meme or funny video, it’s that simple. I find that this paranoia/delusion about algorithms is even more prominent on platforms that are actually dying like Twitter where I see artists moaning about “the algorithm” and blaming it for their lack of engagement without considering that the site is actively worse to use, that their competing with hundreds of thousands of accounts for attention, etc etc

(Before someone interjects with it, I guess the only exception to “algorithm as boogeyman” would be Bluesky where there isn’t one algorithm but potentially an infinity of them since people can just make up their own feeds with their own rules, it’s hard to quantify the effects of this given that the site is still invite only but 🤷)

another angle about long posts, vids, etc is that "do i fully check this out" isnt just a matter of things like "attention span", but also because theres a billion long things that are competing for your time. yeah i could spend 10 minutes reading and thinking about a post, or i could spend 10 minutes reading some book im already reading, or playing a video game, or etc etc. in contrast, a small thing only takes up like 5 seconds* so it sorta doesnt compete.

we cant do every cool thing that we could do. so a lot of stuff gets missed and this affects our creative output.

*(kinda unrelated to the broader topic) although also people tend to "trick" themselves by spending the same amount of time scrolling through lots of small content. when im casually browsing stuff i tend to use a little stopwatch program so that i get a better idea of how much time im spending on something so i think more abuot "oh hm maybe i should pull off" instead of 50 minutes magically vanishing and you felt like it was 15

Just wanted to point out that "Chronologically sort every single post from people you reply, displaying context" IS an algorithm. You can see this quite clearly when your timeline looks like this:

  • E, who you follow, reshared this post by C who reshared this post by B who reshared this post by A
  • D, who you follow, reshared this post by C who reshared this post by B who reshared this post by A
  • C, who you follow, reshared this post by B who reshared this post by A
  • A, who you follow, posted this

meaning that your cohost feed now looks like [A, B, C, E, A, B, C, D, C, B, A, A]

The original post gets broadcast as many times as you can throw a oneliner joke at it from your followers, which I guess is a very tumblr-esque thing to do? but looks pretty surprising from someone who's more used to a reddit style of consumption (only A ends up on your feed; clicking on it reveals a bunch of threaded replies B/C/D/E underneath it).

for me I think a big factor is that with long posts, I'm consciously budgeting my time/spoons/focus when choosing whether to engage with them. with shorter posts, it's easy to lose a few hours scrolling without consciously choosing to, because each post requires very little marginal attention

it's the same unfortunate fundamental aspect of human psychology where most people wouldn't choose to eat that whole bag of chips instead of a proper meal (when the latter is available), but will still eat "just one more chip" until the whole bag is gone and their appetite is spoiled

and the thing with social media is, if I was serious about investing my time in a fulfilling way I'd probably pick up a novel instead

i am begging on my hands and knees people start realizing that the platforms we use are intentionally constructed towards specific purposes we cannot keep looking at negative outcomes and throwing our hands up like "oh well it's just the Free Market Of Ideas at work i guess!"

as someone who uses social media, but doesn't post much, this really isn't why i dislike algorithms. with cohost it feels more like i'm choosing to be here, and there's a natural endpoint to the interaction. i still loose afternoons just scrolling the site, but i feel less like... violated? i guess? it takes on a very different tone. like, on tiktok, ill scroll for 3 hours and feel worse by the end, but the only thing i can think to do to relax after feeling that shitty is... watch more tiktoks. cohost is a site i can scroll while remembering that taking a walk is an option, and i like that.
idk i probably explained that terribly, and everything you said is good and smart, but i wanted to offer gentle pushback to the idea that algorithms are completely morally neutral, even if that... really isnt what you were saying. it's late idk