Yeah, most of what the article complains about is algorithmic social media and how it boosts engagement of any kind, whether positive or negative. This leads to “extremist” takes gaining ground easier then moderate takes. Combined with algorithmic siloing, echo chambers etc. That we’ve heard a million times, make people more radical and disconnected from reality.
The “algorithm” most people use on lemmy is just most up voted, so controversial takes rarely rise to the top. A lot of the stuff would be considered controversial outside of here, but within lemmy there’s a “hard left” consensus where the moderates are probably democratic socialists.
Lemmy also benefits from not tracking total karma or whatever. Per-post or per-comment scores at most.
From my experience, Beehaw disabling downvotes furthers this even more. This means that people can either voice their disagreement, report the post/comment for violating the rules, or ignore it and move on. There’s no way to anonymously “punish” a post you disagree with (unless it violates the rules), and not as much incentive to stick to the echo chamber either.
I’ve never gotten the point of upvoting or downvoting as the main for of engagement with “social” media. I may do one or the other once a week when I get a chuckle or see an absurd take on journalism that isn’t worth engaging with, but simply clicking an icon is scarcely participation.
People with actual things to say is far more satisfying than facing a Hatfield-McCoy standoff.
Yeah, most of what the article complains about is algorithmic social media and how it boosts engagement of any kind, whether positive or negative. This leads to “extremist” takes gaining ground easier then moderate takes. Combined with algorithmic siloing, echo chambers etc. That we’ve heard a million times, make people more radical and disconnected from reality.
The “algorithm” most people use on lemmy is just most up voted, so controversial takes rarely rise to the top. A lot of the stuff would be considered controversial outside of here, but within lemmy there’s a “hard left” consensus where the moderates are probably democratic socialists.
Lemmy also benefits from not tracking total karma or whatever. Per-post or per-comment scores at most.
From my experience, Beehaw disabling downvotes furthers this even more. This means that people can either voice their disagreement, report the post/comment for violating the rules, or ignore it and move on. There’s no way to anonymously “punish” a post you disagree with (unless it violates the rules), and not as much incentive to stick to the echo chamber either.
I’ve never gotten the point of upvoting or downvoting as the main for of engagement with “social” media. I may do one or the other once a week when I get a chuckle or see an absurd take on journalism that isn’t worth engaging with, but simply clicking an icon is scarcely participation.
People with actual things to say is far more satisfying than facing a Hatfield-McCoy standoff.