4 ms·
My argument for what makes it different was in my post. It doesn't try to monetize the social activity. It is still algorithm driven. Even has many features
by taeric 2y ago
My argument for what makes it different was in my post. It doesn't try to monetize the social activity. It is still algorithm driven. Even has many features people typically don't know. Just nothing driving money that I know of.
- Karrot_Kream 2y agoI don't think money changes any of the toxic behaviors that emerge from social media. Every social site I've been on, money or not, has featured: * Exaggerated high-intensity language intended to rant or show indignation * Low effort posting chasing some form of in-network metacurrency (upvotes, likes, replies, etc.) * Argumentative conversation threads that devolve because the participants just start shouting at each other. * Angry rumors that get amplified that have dubious or no basis in reality. The rumors generally prey on some pre-existing anger in the community. * General misinformation amplification because most folks on social don't have the bandwidth to verify facts. I've seen these on Usenet, on forums, and all of these things happen on Mastodon despite none of these networks having money tied into them. My feeling is that these behaviors happen on all text-based networks (and many media-based networks, but I think those are different) that humans socialize on. Moderation and filtration is probably the best way to clamp down on this behavior.
- taeric 2y agoI think money adds to it. I don't think it is the only problem. Good moderation is vital. And it is not much, but the friction of having to hit next page slows some of the doom scrolling traps. Reputation style points are probably important in there? Makes it harder to flood with bots.