Fediverse

No, not as simply as that. That's the basic idea of recommendation systems that were common in the 1990s. The algorithm requires a tremendous amount of dimensionality reduction to work at scale. In that simple description it would need a trillion weights to compare the preferences of a million users to a million other users. If you reduce it to some standard 100-1000ish dimensions of preference it becomes feasible, but at the low end only contains about as much information as your own choices about subscribed to or blocked communities (obviously it has a much lower barrier of entry).

There's another important aspect of learning that the simple description leaves out, which is exploration. It will quickly start showing you things you reliably like, but won't experiment with things it doesn't know you'd like or not to find out.

It might be easier to have posts be given tags and weights and have up voting and down voting change a users tags and weights and maybe have new content sorted by closeness to the users vectors space.

That way you aren't having to track every event but instead having events update the objects values.

That would be my thought at least. Though I would think it would be best that users could sliding scale the effect. As in let the user determine how "aligned" they want the posts they see to be with them.

Do not want. It puts everyone into their own little echo chamber. What we have is already bad enough. Just sort chronological for everyone.

Interesting idea, but it sounds computationally expensive which could pose problems. Smaller, hardware-restricted servers would be less viable

Now that is a fascinating idea. I really like it

That way people can get content relevant to them. Genius.