I think that may be the right general direction, but I believe that they haven't considered how the feeds people use help shape the culture of the site as a whole, so someone else using a bad algorithmic feed (e.g. one that amplifies conflict and fake content) can impact me even if I don't personally use it; its availability impacts the behavior of the users around me. So I imagine it would probably make sense to enforce some parameters on what feeds are allowed to do and mandate total transparency, which Bluesky does not do AFAIK.

I feel that the importance of shaping the norms and culture of a site is an underappreciated aspect of building a good social media ecosystem. I often think that it would probably make sense to start from the sort of culture and experience you're hoping to offer, go to social and behavioral scientists to inform what mechanisms might encourage that, and only then go to software engineers to start designing a solution that implements the high-level ideas. It seems that most projects start with software engineers designing things, but that's a bit like having software, electrical, and mechanical engineers design an airplane without first consulting aerospace engineers.
@joebeone

And, yeah, I think the pure chronological timeline is insufficient (and curating a bunch of lists is somewhat impractical). I would kill to have the "quiet posters" feed from Bluesky over here. I'm hoping that Fedi will get over the algorithm phobia and start experimenting more with more transparent, prosocial algorithmic feeds.
@joebeone

EDIT: *and* I am already following ‍️ I guess plain chronological timeline does sometimes have disadvantages if you follow a lot of people and don't have good list discipline ...