6 ms·

>There are not really ceilings, barrier to entry, or way around the system, so it's resistant to spams and manipulations. I feel like we must be using differen

by Groxx 2y ago

>There are not really ceilings, barrier to entry, or way around the system, so it's resistant to spams and manipulations. I feel like we must be using different internets. Spam and manipulation are rampant on social networks lately, far beyond what they used to be, and while there aren't really barriers to entry there absolutely are barriers to reach: you're not as widely followed as the spammers, your stuff will be drowned out. As evidence I offer: any cursory glance at Facebook or Twitter, both of which have likes and retweets.

numpad0 2y ago
> I feel like we must be using different internets. I can't shake off the thought that this statement might be more truthful than it deserves to be. Some of social media accounts are closer to what you have described, some are more like what I have. The Dead Internet Syndrome must be not spreading uniformly, but there must be significant disparity across fields and bubbles, deepening divides between common folks without clean freshwater supply and those privileged that has access to spam-immune input source. My Twitter timeline is... not great, not terrible. Reddit is out of question.
- Groxx 2y ago
  There are pockets of Internet that are still great, definitely. But "likes and retweets" are long-time major features of basically all of the absolute biggest social sites in the world, and they're also some of the most awful ones that people keep looking for ways to leave. So no, I don't think it's particularly outdated. Predictive, if anything.
- rcpt 2y ago
  Reddit you have control over your timeline. The comments can be good to. Just stick to your interests. Twitter turned into garbage when Elon decided to make it pay-to-play. Giving Blue Checks ranking boosts and extra power when they block others ruined every reply section. On any even vaguely political tweet you now have to scroll forever through a bunch of illustrated profile pics hurling insults before you can get to a real discussion.
  - brokenmachine 2y ago
    >Twitter turned into garbage when Elon decided to make it pay-to-play. Twitter has been garbage for a long time before that.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    No. Reddit has zero manipulation resistance. Votes aren't working, and its users are too prone to manipulations too. Tangentially and thankfully, current Internet manipulation frameworks appear to have been built for Reddit and its users; it sticks out elsewhere, and those malicious users at individual levels are easy to bump over edge for anyone with experience in other Internet communities. Twitter is o-kay. They seem to have largely gave up investments on African-Indian spammer program and it's on its way out. Gratification mechanisms outside of the feedback loop such as paid boosts and reward cash are clearly detrimental to creator performance, so they were destined to be filtered out. Pushing blue check contents is like pushing AI clips in style of Tarkovsky to TikTok junkies, it never works. I think Twitter users by this point as a collective consciousness must have learned that weaponizing Bluesky/Mastodon transition to trivialize corporate influence is a viable short term strategy, considering how slow and tame changes on the platform has lately been. Twitter had always had such mutually toxic and manipulative relationship between the company and its users.
MichaelZuo 2y ago
Aren’t ‘barriers to reach’ pretty much necessary beyond a certain scale? Since a pure chronological feed would be unusable for anyone following more than a few dozen people. Or for anyone searching any terms more popular than the most obscure niches. So there has to be some system deciding winners and losers effectively.
- numpad0 2y ago
  GP's point is that organized spamming had defeated algorithms and contributing/consuming organic high quality contents is no longer viable. I think that depends.
  - Groxx 2y ago
    No longer viable for many / for new entrants on the majority of the social internet, which is facebook, twitter, etc other giga-sites. You can do it if you have other means to jump-start your followers (pre-existing popularity elsewhere, $$$$$ advertising, interaction-farming bots, etc), but they're all catering for celebrity accounts ("real" and manufactured, i.e. facebook spammers) and drowning out newbies because that's what drives giga-traffic and giga-advertising money. Nobody likes that they are the biggest social internet sites, but they are unambiguously the biggest, by a very large margin, and they like to copy each other's worst profitable parts.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      This seems like a tautology, by definition most people do not have significant differentiating factors between them. Because only the most noteworthy fraction of the population are well… noteworthy. So the only reliable factors to boost the vast majority of the population way above their peers would be money, endorsements, etc…
      - Groxx 2y ago
        It being a difficulty in general in any multi-billion-person environment: seems very likely yes. It's not a tautology for a site to bias for it though. That's a decision.

by Groxx 2y ago

numpad0 2y ago

> I feel like we must be using different internets. I can't shake off the thought that this statement might be more truthful than it deserves to be. Some of social media accounts are closer to what you have described, some are more like what I have. The Dead Internet Syndrome must be not spreading uniformly, but there must be significant disparity across fields and bubbles, deepening divides between common folks without clean freshwater supply and those privileged that has access to spam-immune input source. My Twitter timeline is... not great, not terrible. Reddit is out of question.

Groxx 2y ago
There are pockets of Internet that are still great, definitely. But "likes and retweets" are long-time major features of basically all of the absolute biggest social sites in the world, and they're also some of the most awful ones that people keep looking for ways to leave. So no, I don't think it's particularly outdated. Predictive, if anything.
rcpt 2y ago
Reddit you have control over your timeline. The comments can be good to. Just stick to your interests. Twitter turned into garbage when Elon decided to make it pay-to-play. Giving Blue Checks ranking boosts and extra power when they block others ruined every reply section. On any even vaguely political tweet you now have to scroll forever through a bunch of illustrated profile pics hurling insults before you can get to a real discussion.
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  >Twitter turned into garbage when Elon decided to make it pay-to-play. Twitter has been garbage for a long time before that.
- numpad0 2y ago
  No. Reddit has zero manipulation resistance. Votes aren't working, and its users are too prone to manipulations too. Tangentially and thankfully, current Internet manipulation frameworks appear to have been built for Reddit and its users; it sticks out elsewhere, and those malicious users at individual levels are easy to bump over edge for anyone with experience in other Internet communities. Twitter is o-kay. They seem to have largely gave up investments on African-Indian spammer program and it's on its way out. Gratification mechanisms outside of the feedback loop such as paid boosts and reward cash are clearly detrimental to creator performance, so they were destined to be filtered out. Pushing blue check contents is like pushing AI clips in style of Tarkovsky to TikTok junkies, it never works. I think Twitter users by this point as a collective consciousness must have learned that weaponizing Bluesky/Mastodon transition to trivialize corporate influence is a viable short term strategy, considering how slow and tame changes on the platform has lately been. Twitter had always had such mutually toxic and manipulative relationship between the company and its users.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

Aren’t ‘barriers to reach’ pretty much necessary beyond a certain scale? Since a pure chronological feed would be unusable for anyone following more than a few dozen people. Or for anyone searching any terms more popular than the most obscure niches. So there has to be some system deciding winners and losers effectively.

numpad0 2y ago
GP's point is that organized spamming had defeated algorithms and contributing/consuming organic high quality contents is no longer viable. I think that depends.
- Groxx 2y ago
  No longer viable for many / for new entrants on the majority of the social internet, which is facebook, twitter, etc other giga-sites. You can do it if you have other means to jump-start your followers (pre-existing popularity elsewhere, $$$$$ advertising, interaction-farming bots, etc), but they're all catering for celebrity accounts ("real" and manufactured, i.e. facebook spammers) and drowning out newbies because that's what drives giga-traffic and giga-advertising money. Nobody likes that they are the biggest social internet sites, but they are unambiguously the biggest, by a very large margin, and they like to copy each other's worst profitable parts.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    This seems like a tautology, by definition most people do not have significant differentiating factors between them. Because only the most noteworthy fraction of the population are well… noteworthy. So the only reliable factors to boost the vast majority of the population way above their peers would be money, endorsements, etc…
    - Groxx 2y ago
      It being a difficulty in general in any multi-billion-person environment: seems very likely yes. It's not a tautology for a site to bias for it though. That's a decision.