The flaw is that this content is getting less engagement on Twitter. Chasing engagement is how we got into horrible state of social media we are in now. If something is worth doing then it’ll be worth doing regardless of amount of likes you get.
I think the flaw is intentionally limited visibility by meta, which they are using engagement to track. Considering what they are trying to point out, what other metric do you think they should be using?
You see this as Meta boosting wrong things. I see this as a problem with algorithmic timelines and boosting things in general. If someone is interested in a particular subject they should seek out sources of information on that topic and follow them, but by then you don’t care that wrong things are boosted, or that people like, dislike or are disinterested too much.
I see it as meta intentionally lowering visibility, not as boosting other things. The root problem of that being algorithmic timelines rather than an actual timeline.
Which this post also points out (indirectly).
Again, what metric would you suggest to use to demonstrate this?
I’m not really interested in any debate around semantics, to me the answer is no, applying a -1 to entry a is not the same as a +1 to entry z, but its also completely irrelevant to the question.
Again, what metric would you suggest to use to demonstrate this?
Have you considered that it’s not censorship and just that regular people are not interested in it, and that there are vastly different people on different platforms.
I dunno. I agree that the way engagement is used is often toxic, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. If your job is creating content, then its useful to know how well that content is being received by your community. Hell, without measuring interaction in some way you wouldn’t even know if you had a community.
I don’t think social media should be used for people doing their jobs, that’s what RSS is for. I’m on social media to talk to people, not to be sold things.
Its a communication platform and these people are just communicating. Part of good communication is watching who is actually listening. That’s all this is.
Let’s measure that by taking a look at a number of meaningful responses and discussions this has generated then? Likes and boosts don’t even mean that the person doing it read those posts.
Isn’t the entire point of social media to interact with other people? I.e. engagement. Why even bother posting on social media if that’s not what you’re looking for?
When I talk to other people normally I don’t really consider if what I’m doing is going to make them like, save or subscribe to my posts, therefore I don’t need to measure it. More social person might but that’s still an unhealthy amount of reliance on external validation.
We seem to be talking about different things here. Validation vs engagement. When the only metric you have of visibility is the number of likes, then that’s what you use. If you want engagement, your content needs visibility.
If someone post on social media to spread a message, news or something else, they want to know if their posts are viewed or are just useless because the algorithm hide them;
The person in the image cleary is among these people
I’d rather not have those people on social networks either. Post news if you think they’re worth checking out but don’t make it your mission. We don’t really need more spaces where we get to be sold stuff to, political agendaposting included.
Can you prove that this post was „hidden” and not just ignored by algorithm that boosts content that will ensure longer engagement? Yes, algorithmic timelines are cancer, no need to invent conspiracy theories.
OP is complaining that he’s not the winner of the algorithm. I say fuck algorithms, let’s browse things chronologically. Makes you notice that guys like Randahl Fink produce repetitive and boring drumbeat content for those politically polarised.
Read the other comments, everyone seem to have the same expirience: every post has somewhat good visibility but when they make one that link to a website, it doesn’t get any visibility
I’m a data analyst because I like to stick to the facts so I’m not interested in anecdotes from self selected population because bias is off the charts here.
The flaw is that this content is getting less engagement on Twitter. Chasing engagement is how we got into horrible state of social media we are in now. If something is worth doing then it’ll be worth doing regardless of amount of likes you get.
I think the flaw is intentionally limited visibility by meta, which they are using engagement to track. Considering what they are trying to point out, what other metric do you think they should be using?
You see this as Meta boosting wrong things. I see this as a problem with algorithmic timelines and boosting things in general. If someone is interested in a particular subject they should seek out sources of information on that topic and follow them, but by then you don’t care that wrong things are boosted, or that people like, dislike or are disinterested too much.
I do not.
I see it as meta intentionally lowering visibility, not as boosting other things. The root problem of that being algorithmic timelines rather than an actual timeline.
Which this post also points out (indirectly).
Again, what metric would you suggest to use to demonstrate this?
Isn’t adjusting weights of what’s being shown effectively the same as boosting?
I’m not really interested in any debate around semantics, to me the answer is no, applying a -1 to entry a is not the same as a +1 to entry z, but its also completely irrelevant to the question.
Again, what metric would you suggest to use to demonstrate this?
I agree. This is about censorship, and it’s misguided to think ‘they only care because of views/likes/upvotes’.
Have you considered that it’s not censorship and just that regular people are not interested in it, and that there are vastly different people on different platforms.
This… Is the wisest comment I’ve read in some time. Even though we all know this, it rarely gets said enough.
I dunno. I agree that the way engagement is used is often toxic, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. If your job is creating content, then its useful to know how well that content is being received by your community. Hell, without measuring interaction in some way you wouldn’t even know if you had a community.
I don’t think social media should be used for people doing their jobs, that’s what RSS is for. I’m on social media to talk to people, not to be sold things.
Its a communication platform and these people are just communicating. Part of good communication is watching who is actually listening. That’s all this is.
Let’s measure that by taking a look at a number of meaningful responses and discussions this has generated then? Likes and boosts don’t even mean that the person doing it read those posts.
look i’ll tell you what i dislike about social media but you’ve gotta give me a like and a subscribe first
Isn’t the entire point of social media to interact with other people? I.e. engagement. Why even bother posting on social media if that’s not what you’re looking for?
When I talk to other people normally I don’t really consider if what I’m doing is going to make them like, save or subscribe to my posts, therefore I don’t need to measure it. More social person might but that’s still an unhealthy amount of reliance on external validation.
We seem to be talking about different things here. Validation vs engagement. When the only metric you have of visibility is the number of likes, then that’s what you use. If you want engagement, your content needs visibility.
In normal human interactions you don’t need to measure validation either.
If someone post on social media to spread a message, news or something else, they want to know if their posts are viewed or are just useless because the algorithm hide them; The person in the image cleary is among these people
I’d rather not have those people on social networks either. Post news if you think they’re worth checking out but don’t make it your mission. We don’t really need more spaces where we get to be sold stuff to, political agendaposting included.
You don’t get the point: “why would i continue posting in this social that hide my shit on purpose when i can use this other one that doesn’t?”
Can you prove that this post was „hidden” and not just ignored by algorithm that boosts content that will ensure longer engagement? Yes, algorithmic timelines are cancer, no need to invent conspiracy theories.
Isn’t that exactly what the OP is complaining about? The exact mechanism doesn’t matter. The point is that it’s not getting visibility.
OP is complaining that he’s not the winner of the algorithm. I say fuck algorithms, let’s browse things chronologically. Makes you notice that guys like Randahl Fink produce repetitive and boring drumbeat content for those politically polarised.
Read the other comments, everyone seem to have the same expirience: every post has somewhat good visibility but when they make one that link to a website, it doesn’t get any visibility
I’m a data analyst because I like to stick to the facts so I’m not interested in anecdotes from self selected population because bias is off the charts here.
I agree 100%