3 ms·
I don't think your first and second sentence are necessarily in conflict with each other. In fact, Slow Social has no algorithms for engagement-optimizing, it's
by CitrusFruits 4y ago
I don't think your first and second sentence are necessarily in conflict with each other. In fact, Slow Social has no algorithms for engagement-optimizing, it's part of the design of the application.
That being said, you absolutely _could_ be right on the restrictions on post frequency. Perhaps its not something any sort of large user base might not want. However, as far as I know it hasn't been tried before, and I think that makes it worth a shot.
Lastly, it's possible that restrictions on post frequency serve a segment of the population that might be underserved by current social media, and its something those people would thrive one. At this point we can't say for sure, but I'd love to find out.
- civilized 4y agoSlowing things down has the virtue of being a much easier means of social engineering than figuring out how to empower users to control the flow of content that comes to them. I only have some sketchy ideas of how exactly it would work. Definitely the starting point is to let users have a simple chronological option.
- linuxdude314 4y agoHow does slowing things down make social engineering easier? That’s a security term, and I’m not quite sure how it’s relevant to the OP.