It's an issue with decentralization tho. What is worth showing? What is not worth showing? How do you globally define that? Twitter taught us engagement farming algorithms with lots of debates is what gets in our feeds, even if they are stupid and enraging. Or better especially if they are. I think having competition for a while on what good content discovery is is the right step forward, we will see which ones people like and which ones not. The default case is not having an algorithm but a regular timeline. Algos are a tool, for example to see stuff you would have otherwise missed. People can use them or not. Or use other ones. Or even build their own ones. That's the beauty of this approach. 

 We don't disagree.  A marketplace of algorithms, some that are static rulebased and would show the same feed for everyone who uses them (like those in the video it looks like) - such as 'these five hashtags' will be useful to a wide swath of people.  But imagine they are five corporate hashtags.  The end game is that the hashtags / npubs / notes are chosen based on my preferences for me, and your preferences for you.  The algo builds based on my sliders, knobs, levers, defaults, preferences, WOT scores, and I can change them to see what changes, rather than, the algo builds based on the engineer's ideas and preferences. 

 Yes. Sure. I don't think it's too hard to run notes and likes/zaps of notes through some ai and make automated topic classification of what people may like, and then build algorithms on these things. I did some attempts with that in the past. I think it's even cool if we have one or two or 10 dvms that offer exactly that. But I think it's also nice to freely chose to watch flowers instead of everything Bitcoin because I normally interact with these topic the most 😅

There are personalized Dvms and generic ones. Personalized ones for example only consider your follow list and process feeds just for you, while generic ones give the same results to everyone (but they are faster to reply)