pull down to refresh
54 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 16 Jan \ parent \ on: The dead internet vs the Lightning network mostly_harmless
Framing of that may need to change, less about what's absolutely new and more what's newly relevant to the user
How often do you get a recommendation for an old movie or TV show? Read a wikipedia article that's not been updated in months or years? Peruse an old review or blog post?
There's an infinite amount of content that would be stale on a feed, but you haven't seen yet because you didn't seek it out probably because it hasn't been relevant to you... so whatever replaces feeds (or a new algo for feeds) assesses what's new with you and your mind and not so much what's been newly posted.
You described evergreen the way I intend the term -- doesn't matter when it was written, it's relevant now. Although you added a distinction that complicates it a bit -- the relevance would evolve based on your own evolution.
Crime and Punishment references from a hundred years ago were not relevant a month ago, now they are. So it's less about the thing, even if it's a high-quality and timeless thing, and more about the interface between you and the thing, whoever you happen to be at the moment.
Maybe the science fiction version would be an intent-less / ambient search engine.
reply
Maybe the science fiction version would be an intent-less / ambient search engine.
I think that's what Google at one point said they wanted to do, it just requires a lot of your private data... ironically the same people that would probably most enjoy higher signal feeds are going to be more stingy with their data than average feed dopamine enjoooyer.
Surely a fortune to be made figuring this out.
reply