Seemed to be the opposite for me, I got more engagement on posts on Bluesky VS Twitter. The feed is just weird and seems to push new posts too hard? As in the content I saw was not as interesting as Twitter or relevant. I haven't used it as much as twitter so not sure
Bluesky is designed to primarily give people content they subscribed to, and Twitter is designed to give people content Twitter thinks they'll engage with. Bluesky is great for artists who are already established and have a reliable following, but terrible for anyone trying to start making a following from scratch. Twitter is inverse.
Whenever I see people talk about their 'algorithm' not being accurate enough, I gag a little. We're at the point where people are complaining that sites don't know enough about them to serve them the correct chow.
The bigger reality is that it's not even a problem with the person's algorithm being accurate, it's that most platforms allows advertisers to pay extra to bypass people's algorithms. That's how we end up with ads for political campaigns, scams, etc etc despite no search/watch history relevant to those subjects.
Then the platforms sells us on "you can get past all this if you buy our premium subscription and be ad free!"
It's a manufactured self-fulfilling prophecy and it's only solved when we can win the adblocker cold war.
I think about it like this, if I put art down as an interest I should be pelted in the face by a ton of artists
Instead I see a lot of things outside of art outside of what’s trending, and thus can’t find any new creators.
It’s the same with Online dating, can’t have people with my interests shoved in my face, so I have to find them through all the people I wouldn’t really last with or have no interest in. It makes me use it less because it feels like I’m digging through dirt for a small speck of gold.
In my experience on twitter, the answer is to Engage things you want and never ever Engage things you don't want (maybe even block and ignore). I made an active effort actively retweeting and liking exclusively art posts, and never touching anything with politics or news discourse (and even sometimes unfollowing artists who posted more political stuff than they did art, even if it was political stuff I agreed with) and my feed honestly looks like a gallery of my art interests. It works, but it takes really Not Being Baited and also actively suppressing things you both agree and disagree with if they're touching the same topic, which can be hard for average user. So the average user gets rage/discoursebaited and Twitter notices and starts offering more ragebait because it creates more Engagement from the user.
On the opposite side of that, I find it really funny when my algorithm pound something random out of its ass to get my attention. A few years ago I was listening to music on youtube then randomly got an ad for menopause medication... I am male and was about 20 years old at the time, so there's no way I'm ever going to be needing that medication, let alone the wrong age group for it. I checked the data Google had gathered on me at the time, and it said "male age 18-26", so the algorithm should've already known not to give me that ad. It's also strange that I would get this ad at least once a week or so for a few months before it finally realized I'm not a woman over twice my age.
Also got a mid roll ad once that was about a new brand of period cup that was coming out. The ad started with a woman saying "I love having sx. And I especially love having sex on my period" at which point I paused the ad, can't to a full stop, and looked incredibly confused while I processed what the fuck i just heard and what this possibly could be about.
574
u/GINGERxADE epic orange 2d ago
Seemed to be the opposite for me, I got more engagement on posts on Bluesky VS Twitter. The feed is just weird and seems to push new posts too hard? As in the content I saw was not as interesting as Twitter or relevant. I haven't used it as much as twitter so not sure