> This is nonsense; there are people gaming the system constantly who have to be actively fought. Twitter has gone past that point years ago, possibly more tha

> This is nonsense; there are people gaming the system constantly who have to be actively fought. Twitter has gone past that point years ago, possibly more than a decade ago. It's a warzone of drug resistant attention gamers and wannabes with cash to burn for as long as I remember. Maybe it wasn't as much as it is now during 2007-2008. IMO, clickbaits and even wooow faces can be considered improvements so long that judgement criteria with presenters and audiences are aligned. Ragebaits are bad, open mouth brainrot thumbnails are disgusting, but a clear and content representative thumbnails would be good - the differences are not in levels of amplification relative to unmodified baseline, but in directions(is the "Inception braaam" bad? I love it and I think it's same thing as clickbaits.) Evaporative effect as laid out in the article is a situation where "players" of social media as a videogame exhausts motives to play it. The game must continuously supply dopamine release to creators, whether by rewarding ever sillier thumbnails stronger or more insightful comments better, to retain useful players for content supply to continue. Again IMO, Twitter had achieved a near steady state cycle of gratification and content drop by architectural design, careful userbase formation, and useful set-in-stone precedents, relatively resistant to sabotaging and/or manipulation. Is that entire thing a major net negative to this planet? Maybe. One could just say it and few would differ. It's supercharging scholarly experts across various fields and enabling invasive cultural pressures, so it seems neutral to positive to me.