Why there is no algorithm here

What breaks social platforms isn't a lack of moderation. It's the purely algorithmic management of our attention in the service of engagement.

You don't get to see what you want to see. You see what you're most likely to react to.

That design exploits the small, harmless biases we all carry and sharpens them into something extreme, eroding the very basis for shared understanding.

Which is why the fight over moderation and fact-checking is a distraction. Both operate downstream of the thing actually shaping what you see. Ranking has already picked what was eligible; moderation only edits the shortlist.

The alternative is old. Revisit the pre-algorithmic origins of Twitter and Facebook: a feed in plain chronological order, showing you only the people you actually chose to follow.

I want social media that is actually about my social graph. Remember that? Where you curate who you follow? And where a feed can actually end and is only as good (or bad) as you make it.

fewer.photos is that feed. The people you picked and nobody else, no suggestions, no reshares, no counts beside anyone's name. Reach the bottom and there is nothing underneath.

It also limits you to one photo every eight hours. That doesn't follow from any of the above, and you can agree with all of it and still find the limit annoying. A chronological feed of people who post constantly is still a feed you can't finish.