This kind of metric is tricky to interpret: one where both numerator (likes etc) and denominator (followers) are "good things", so that a ratio going up can mea

This kind of metric is tricky to interpret: one where both numerator (likes etc) and denominator (followers) are "good things", so that a ratio going up can mean good or bad. This person is testing just one piece of content, but in aggregate, I'm not sure you would see the same. Recommended content on other platforms makes it possible to have lots of engagement even with zero followers, to "bootstrap" your audience in ways that Mastodon doesn't support. The biggest difference between these platforms is how much, as a content creator, you "own" your followership. On Mastodon there isn't a lot of second guessing by the platform - your stuff goes to your followers about the same every time. Most other platforms treat followers as a kind of vanity metric that gives content producers a way to measure up and monetize off platform, but it's not a primary driver of content distribution anymore - neither are your followers guaranteed to see what you post, nor do you have to get followers to help your content be seen by anyone. It sounds user-hostile that the main social media platforms "don't give users what they want", by more or less ignoring their expressed desire to follow someone, but it's the opposite. Platforms that are dominant today grew their audience by following this playbook through the 2010's, because in the end, it works for users. Now what it does pose, from the content producers point of view, is fairness problems. A lot of the whining about bad performance is in fact just because - sorry folks - the content plainly suck, and rather than show sucky content to followers, the platforms show better content. But it's also true that it's easier to find ways to characterize the algorithms as unfair to an individual producer. The platforms grow the pie in aggregate but as a producer you lose control. The "fediverse" offers control and transparency, but what remains to be seen is whether it can do so while remaining an engaging platform for a sizeable enough chunk of the population to matter.