That's an algorithm.

'A function over discrete data' is a far broader concept / far larger set than 'an algorithm'.

I'm pretty sure people expect to be able look at The Algorithm and find the part that is trying to destroy <whatever their hobby-horse is>. I bet whatever we see will lean more toward "big dumb pile of A/B tests."

The "timeline algorithm" is a perfectly normal way to describe what people ask about.

No, there isn't.

The level of discourse I'm trying to convey like what we saw in the Zuck/Pichai hearings in Congress. No understanding of the domain at all.

You or I know how software actually works, your average politician or man on the street does not.

I mean even if timelines were totally random, or based on some external facts, there is an algorithm that is being used to order them.

This isn't just an academic distinction. Claiming 'there is no algorithm' because the algorithm is intentionally or unintentionally obfuscated or complicated has implications if that claim of 'no algorithm' is accepted. If my algorithm for approving mortgage applications is explicitly racist, I can just spread it's functionality across myriad services owned by lots of teams, make it almost impossible to figure out how it works, and then avoid any responsibility by saying 'there is no algorithm to decide loan approvals'? That would be bullshit!

And does every user have their own algorithm?

And could it be made readable to a human?

Take an example like gravity: is there an algorithm for how gravity acts even though it varies per each molecule based on a kajillion other molecules? Of course there is.

I for one haven't worked at FAANG and think it'll be super interesting to read this code, I can't believe software engineers are complaining about a potentially super complex bleeding edge codebase for timeline recommendations / ranking being open sourced. This is going to be great reading material if it ever gets published!

Systems comprised of (or generated by) comprehensible parts can be comprehended, we just often opt not to put in that work. There's a reason model interpretability is such a significant and increasingly-demanded area of expertise.

Or the trained model itself. There are people looking for intentional bias. But the insidiousness of the problem likely arises from unintentional bias. Letting researchers brute force the ranking models with hypotheticals could be a win win.

  ORDER BY timestamp DESC;

I disagree b/c: That's a system. An algorithm is designed, a system will emerge from pieces. An algorithm can be defined, a system's behavior has to be characterized post-hoc. You can characterize a system, but only as a black/gray box. An algorithm has invariants and stateful steps, a system has nearly infinite state and nearly zero meaningful invariants.

still a system that maps inputs and state to outputs and outputs and state updates.

A collection of algorithms is just a bigger algorithm.

- Search results

- Comment Order

- Timeline Order

- Trends

- Human vs code

Personalization in general. Big gigantic “why” when it happens to you

You know what? This does demonstrate the internal problems inside Twitter and shows the need for shakeup.

There is no "no algorithm."

If it affects results in the slightest, I think that's what people are asking about.

Yeah, if the new senior dev screwed up a deployment and now football fans in Dallas are suddenly getting fewer posts about the most recent athlete scandal all because a regional deployment was the only thing doing relevance record keeping, then yes, that's a part of "the algorithm."

It's an interchangeable function, it would only be publicized if it's clear to leadership that it wouldn't affect their revenue if people started trying to game towards the published algorithm.

But there definitely is a relationship algo that could be considered theirs, like all social medias inflating the bubbles users all feel.