From: wagnes@jemoni.to   
      
   Rich  writes:   
      
   > Wolfgang Agnes  wrote:   
   >> Rich  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> D  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> D  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Rich wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> D  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> This is the truth!  As a thought experiment I sometimes think   
   >>>>>>>> about how I would be able to handle usenet if it had 10x the nr   
   >>>>>>>> of posts, and I don't think I would.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Been there, seen that....  Circa 1995 (I forget which groups now)   
   >>>>>>> the text posting volume was so great in the few groups I was   
   >>>>>>> following that it was not possible to keep up.  I was always   
   >>>>>>> behind, and falling further behind each day.  Eventually the fall   
   >>>>>>> behind problem reached a point where I decided to just drop out.   
   >>>>>>> So I disappeared for a good ten years or so.  Of course, when I   
   >>>>>>> did return again, Usenet was a shadow of its former self as far as   
   >>>>>>> text posting rates go.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It would have to be either a laser focus on a very small nr of   
   >>>>>>>> groups, or aggressive filtering of the subject lines.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> One did have to do both, and even so, the volume was impossible to   
   >>>>>>> keep up with if the group was at all active.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> This is an interesting problem. How is it solved in modern social media?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If by "modern social media" you mean the likes of FB and its ilk,   
   >>>>> presumably by having "the algorithm" showing you stuff, and then you   
   >>>>> just doom scroll through the algorithm driven feed.  And if stuff   
   >>>>> does not get put on your feed, you are unaware of its existance.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ah, so probably just setting some keywords in my client and filter based   
   >>>> on those. Not a very satisfactory solution.   
   >>>   
   >>> Except with "modern social media" you (the user) don't get to "just   
   >>> set[ting] some keywords" for the "algorithm".  The "algorithm" does it   
   >>> all for you by magic.  Which, unfortunately, leaves you at the mercy of   
   >>> the allmighty "algorithm" as to what you see, and provides a great   
   >>> opportunity for the "algorithm" to bias your world view into whatever   
   >>> its creators want your world view to be by selective showing or   
   >>> omission of various posts to your feed.   
   >>   
   >> In other words, it's unacceptable---period.   
   >   
   > Indeed, yes.  With a user-local killfile (i.e., the Usenet client   
   > method) then you, the user, is explicitly deciding what you want to   
   > exclude (or include, as most modern clients implement the 'kill' as a   
   > score so one can up/down articles if one wants).   
   >   
   > But with the allmightly algorithm, you are at the mercy of your   
   > corporate overlords.   
   >   
   > Sadly, as most social media users are very similar to the humans on the   
   > spaceship on the cartoon Wall-E, they are lazy and want "someone else"   
   > to do all the work for them, expecting them to put in the even minimal   
   > effort to curate their own local 'killfile' is likely too much to   
   > expect.   
      
   And that's a very interesting phenomenon---that people are so   
   uninterested in such relevant matters.  The laziness looks more like a   
   depression, a state of total uninterest in one's life.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)