I've been thinking about algorithms a lot lately. Specifically, about how they've become the invisible hand that decides what you see online.

Most platforms optimize for one thing: how long you stay on the platform. They've built entire companies on this premise—the longer you scroll, the more ads they show you, the more data they collect. Algorithms are just the mechanism that keeps you hooked. And they're really, really good at it.

But here's the thing: what's good for the algorithm is rarely good for you.

The Algorithm's Real Incentive

Every algorithm tells you it's trying to "show you what you care about" or "surface relevant content." That sounds helpful, right? It's also completely backwards.

What an algorithm actually does is show you what keeps you engaged. Not what's most valuable. Not what you came to find. Not even what you explicitly told it you wanted to see. It shows you what makes you react emotionally—what angers you, what surprises you, what triggers FOMO.

I've been thinking about how this works. A news algorithm doesn't prioritize accurate information; it prioritizes viral information. A social media algorithm doesn't prioritize genuine connection; it prioritizes engagement spikes. A recommendation algorithm doesn't prioritize quality; it prioritizes watch time.

The algorithm's goal and your goal are fundamentally misaligned.

The Radical Simplicity of Chronological Order

Jottings works differently. When you open Jottings, you see the newest posts from the people you follow. That's it. No fancy weighting. No "relevance" scoring. No hidden logic deciding what you should see.

This isn't some limitation we're planning to remove. It's the entire point.

Chronological order is honest. It says: "Here's what was posted. Here's when it was posted. Now you decide what matters to you." It puts power back in your hands instead of delegating it to a black box.

When you publish something on Jottings, it appears in your followers' feeds the moment you hit publish. Not when an algorithm determines the time is right. Not when engagement metrics suggest optimal visibility. Right then. This is liberating for creators and readers alike.

For readers, you know what you're getting. There's no invisible curation layer deciding your reality. You follow people whose voices you want to hear, and you hear from them. Simple.

Why This Matters Now

We've become so accustomed to algorithmic feeds that chronological order feels almost shocking. "Wait, I might miss something?" people sometimes ask. Yeah, you might. You might miss a post from three years ago that an algorithm thinks you'd like. You might miss something from last week because it didn't trigger enough engagement.

But you also won't miss what you actually care about—if you're paying attention. And that's the trade-off worth making.

The algorithm era has left us with a strange paradox: we have access to everything, yet feel like we're missing everything. Infinite content, infinite anxiety. Recommendations that feel creepy because they're unnervingly accurate. Feeds designed to be endlessly scrollable, endlessly addictive.

A chronological feed is different. It has an endpoint. You reach the bottom, and you're caught up. Then you can actually close the app and do something else. Revolutionary, I know.

Control Belongs to You

Here's what chronological order actually gives you: agency. You're not a passive consumer being fed content based on opaque algorithms. You're an active participant curating your own experience.

You choose who to follow. You choose how often to visit. You choose what to read, what to like, what to respond to. The platform doesn't make those choices for you.

This is antithetical to how modern platforms work. They want to be the intermediary between you and the content you want. They want to own the relationship with both creators and readers. Because that ownership is where the leverage is. That's where the data is. That's where the money is.

Jottings takes a different bet: that people would rather have direct, unmediated access to the voices they follow. That creators want their audience to actually see their work. That readers want to control their own experience.

I think we're right about that.

This Isn't Anti-Technology

Some people think "anti-algorithm" means we're anti-technology or stuck in some nostalgic past. That's a misreading. We use technology extensively in Jottings. We use it to make publishing easier, to make reading faster, to make discovery simpler. We use it to build a platform that actually works.

What we don't do is use technology to mediate your relationships with the content and people you care about. There's a difference.

The chronological feed isn't a limitation; it's a choice. It's choosing honesty over engagement optimization. It's choosing simplicity over complexity. It's choosing to trust you with control over your own feed instead of deciding for you what you should see.

Why I Built It This Way

I built Jottings because I got tired of platforms that treated me like a variable in an optimization equation. I wanted to build something that respected my attention instead of exploiting it. Something where creators could publish and actually reach their audience. Something where readers could have a genuine, unfiltered relationship with the voices they follow.

The chronological feed is the manifestation of that belief.

It's not trendy. It's not going to trigger endless scroll sessions. It won't maximize engagement metrics or generate as much ad inventory or collect as much behavioral data.

And honestly? That's the whole point.

If you're tired of algorithms deciding what you see, if you want control over your own content consumption, if you believe in chronological feeds and honest platforms—join Jottings today. There's no algorithm waiting to tell you what to think. Just the people whose voices you actually want to hear.