But still an algorithm. The difference is that we (at least some of us) place a greater trust in the integrity behind how information surfaces on HN. I think that some parts of it are open source, and the moderators are transparent enough about what isn't public + there is a mix of folk knowledge that explains how HN works under the hood.

Depersonalized algorithms or recommender systems aren't inherently better than personalized ones. HN is an exceptional example of the former but I think at scale people would come up with a different crop of complaints for them.

> It's the same for every user

It isn't. Users who vote and flag more often are more likely to have things from /new surfaced on their main page for example.

The facebook/meta algo might be same for all users, but it had different inputs for each user.

HN, on the other hand, everyone has the same front page. If I like a post I can favorite it to 'bookmark' it, but HN won't modify my front page based on what I favorite, whereas facebook will.

I think the GP's argument is, when it comes to social media, "one size fits all" might be less addictive than "custom made" :)

And also the algorithm here is title-blind. The content of the story bears no sway over its place in the rankings. I do not believe dang cherry-picks either except for the very rare sticky?