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.
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.
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 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.
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.
This… Is the wisest comment I’ve read in some time. Even though we all know this, it rarely gets said enough.
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.
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 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.
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.
I agree 100%