{"id":258710,"date":"2014-10-28T17:42:00","date_gmt":"2014-10-28T22:42:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/?p=258710"},"modified":"2024-01-25T17:51:34","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T22:51:34","slug":"if-you-dont-like-algorithmic-filters-youre-probably-not-going-to-like-the-future-of-twitter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2014\/10\/28\/if-you-dont-like-algorithmic-filters-youre-probably-not-going-to-like-the-future-of-twitter\/","title":{"rendered":"If you don\u2019t like algorithmic filters, you\u2019re probably not going to like the future of Twitter"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There was a lot of attention on Twitter on Monday, as\u00a0the company reported<\/a>\u00a0its quarterly financial results: despite meeting Wall Street estimates on things like revenue, the\u00a0network\u2019s share price slid<\/a>\u00a0by almost 10 percent. According to most of the stock experts who commented on the slump, investors were looking for better user growth and engagement numbers \u2014 and that dilemma helps explain why Twitter is going to\u00a0continue to muck around<\/a>\u00a0with your timeline using algorithms, regardless of whether users want it to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first hint that this trend was likely to accelerate came during an interview last month with new chief financial officer Anthony Noto, who said that the traditional reverse-chronological timeline arrangement \u201cisn\u2019t the most relevant for the user.\u201d Although my summary of his thoughts<\/a> drew plenty of fire from Twitter and its defenders \u2014 who argued that I had taken his comments out of context \u2014 it seemed clear to me what was coming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

.@mathewi<\/a> @om<\/a> he never said a “filtered feed is coming whether you like it or not”. Goodness, what an absurd synthesis of what was said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 dick costolo (@dickc) September 4, 2014<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In fact, comments made by both CEO Dick Costolo<\/a> and by Anthony Noto during Monday\u2019s conference call with financial analysts made it clear that these experiments are going to continue, and if anything will be broadened to the point where they will likely impact every user to some extent. If you see tweets that have been favorited or rewteeted by people you don\u2019t follow showing up in your stream out of sync with your timeline, then you will know that you are part of the rollout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can Twitter have its cake and eat it too?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The company is doing its best to make it sound like this is not a big deal, and that the reverse-chronological timeline will remain intact<\/a>. But the reality is that for many users, the ability to curate their own experience on Twitter is a crucial feature \u2014 just take a look at the survey we did in September<\/a>, which was 87-percent negative on the idea of an algorithmically-curated feed. The idea of someone else deciding what\u2019s important in their stream appears to be anathema to many users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Twitter<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Of course, for Twitter this probably feels like just another enhancement that they think will make the feed better for some \u2014 primarily new users and those who don\u2019t log in very much, which is a key market for the kind of future growth Wall Street wants to see<\/a>. And the stream has already been disturbed by things like promoted tweets and other forms of advertising, which show up out of sync with the timeline. What\u2019s the big deal about one more disruption?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supporters of Twitter\u2019s move, like early investor<\/a> Chris Sacca of Lower Case Capital, argue that the changes will make the service more user-friendly, especially for new users, and that existing or power users shouldn\u2019t see it as a threat. But it\u2019s become very clear that some don\u2019t want Twitter to alter their stream via algorithm even if it claims to be doing so for their own good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The slippery slope of algorithmic filters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The most common response to the idea is that it will make Twitter<\/a> like Facebook, where an algorithm routinely promotes or down-ranks content based on criteria that users can barely understand \u2014 if they even realize that their feed is curated at all (which surveys have shown that many do not). In an impassioned plea to Twitter not to implement a Facebook-style algorithm, sociologist Zeynep Tufekci recently summed up the feelings of many<\/a> die-hard Twitter users:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[blockquote person=\u201d\u201d attribution=\u201d\u201d]The key to this power isn\u2019t the reverse chronology but rather the fact that the network allows humans to exercise free judgment on the worth of content, without strong algorithmic biases. That cumulative, networked freedom is what extends the range of what Twitter can value and surface, and provides some of the best experiences of Twitter.[\/blockquote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Facebook\u2019s feed is different in that it actually hides or removes content without telling people, based on whatever signals its algorithm chooses to look at \u2014 few of which are publicly disclosed, of course \u2014 a number of the company\u2019s fans have pointed out that Twitter is only talking about adding<\/em> content to your stream via algorithm, such as \u201cimportant\u201d tweets that you might have missed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But as more than one person has noted, this is a slippery slope<\/a> at best: once you have made the decision to alter the flow or the arrangement of tweets based on abstract criteria that have been programmed into an algorithm, then at some point you are going to decide \u2014 for the user\u2019s own good \u2014 to hide or remove certain things as well, because you want to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ironic thing about Twitter is that even though many (including me) complain about the difficulty of plowing through all those tweets and finding the signal, we very much want to be the ones doing the filtering, rather than having it done by a faceless algorithm. The whole point of having a social network in the first place is that the people you choose to follow are the algorithm.<\/em> Flawed, perhaps, but human, and therefore somehow wonderfully unpredictable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Encouraging more engagement from new users makes perfect sense for Twitter as a company, and particularly a public one, which has to justify its market value to investors. But the changes that are required in order to do that may not make sense for many of the network\u2019s long-time or power users \u2014 and that\u2019s a dilemma the company is going to have to confront sooner rather than later.<\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There was a lot of attention on Twitter on Monday, as\u00a0the company reported\u00a0its quarterly financial results: despite meeting Wall Street estimates on things like revenue, the\u00a0network\u2019s share price slid\u00a0by almost 10 percent. According to most of the stock experts who commented on the slump, investors were looking for better user growth and engagement numbers \u2014 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “If you don\u2019t like algorithmic filters, you\u2019re probably not going to like the future of Twitter”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crsspst_to_mathewingramblogwordpresscom":true,"mf2_syndication":[],"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gigaom"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258710","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258710"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258710\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":258715,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258710\/revisions\/258715"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}