191–200 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then we’re back to blaming the algorithm.
Algorithmic choices are likely a major contributor to the phenomenon. If posting vacation photos on Facebook gets interactions from friends and family, more people will do it. If it doesn't, fewer people will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linear is awful. Discussions are always so bad with them. The only advantage is that following the newest message is easier, which still doesn't prevent people from ignoring them if the thread becomes too long. The main reason why you might think that way, is less the format, and probably more the moderation, and lower amount of people in those forums. I mean take this forum here, is far better than twitter or any ot…
There's a couple really big things I like about linear. As you said you can follow the thread of conversation in chronological order. Another big thing for me is that it doesn't have comment karma. Upvotes and downvotes result in echo chambers that suppress alternative viewpoints. PG got it almost right here by making you have to meet a threshold to downvote, but I think it would be better if downvotes didn't exist h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure that some of this is influenced by the behavior of the people being moderated? Back to the parks example, it is usually assumed most visitors are in good faith. If there is expectation otherwise, things are usually a bit tougher. For parks, this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that people have to physically be there. That alone is a bit of a moderating factor, I would presume. With online, even 5 people ca…
Yes, that probably also claims a factor. What I was arguing was that employing enough people to moderate should be just cost of business. If that would cost to much there should simply be no business. However the big social media business are right now far from going bankrupt.
Social media as a concept can definitely be fixed. Just stop doing algorithms, period. Strip the platforms of any and all initiative. Make them dumb pipes. Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities. Stop trying to turn it into interactive TV. Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. Make the chronological feed the only option. Social media is meant…
> Stop pretending that people want to use social media for entertainment and news and celebrities People actually want media, social and otherwise, for exactly that. > Stop forcing content from outside of my network upon me. There are social media apps and platforms that don't do that. They are persistently less popular. People, by and large, do want passive discovery from outside of their network, just like they do,…
I think that's a bit murky. Facebook became popular when it was like that. They changed how it worked after it was already popular, seeking to make more mony.
Facebook could provide you options to only see friend's content. People have certainly asked for it. They absolutely refuse to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Algorithmic choices are likely a major contributor to the phenomenon. If posting vacation photos on Facebook gets interactions from friends and family, more people will do it. If it doesn't, fewer people will.
Yes, but the point of this particular study was that the results did not depend on the algo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My tech (I was founding engineer and CTO) company took over a co-working space and expanded it, we ran that portion of it at break even. We intentionally set out to create a social club/co-working space. A lot goes into it. I'm a non-theist who comes from a multi generational group of theist church planters (like 100s of churches, just over and over), it's a multi factorial process with distinct transitions in space-…
I've been wanting to setup something like a 3rd place that tries only to break even. I'm unfortunately not a very social person. Because these 3rd spaces are open to anyone and probably bringing people in from internet commmunties. What do you do when someone comes along and they're not breaking any rules but its clear that no one likes them? I've seen it drive entire groups away but because the person has done nothi…
It isn't a single conversation or room. It isn't a single relationship cluster.
And someone is paying the insurance bill. Ultimately that person gets final say. A successful 3rd place can have tension, but not fools (in the economic sense, a person whose decision making and choices actively destroy the groups financial opportunities and stability. Theoretically a very clumsy person might be banned.)
There's a lot to unpack, I mean social dynamics, group polity, these really start with understanding what you really want to see brought into the world and why.
These things take fluidity, nuance and effort to get off the ground. Sometimes they just get lucky too. It's hard to tell ahead of time, proximity is important, population density is important, parties are important.
Getting initial traction is the hardest part, most groups die before they get a chance to have problems, that's why tying the groups space to a stable economic engine like an anchor company or a mission agency is so critical for repeatable success. Same with a small friend group as initial anchor, they just can't all be clique people.
The one thing that's very important is to always frame the space as a place for creating and experimenting, celebrate the amateur and the pursuit of mastery, getting started with a group of taste makers instead of doers will 100% kill your group.
Getting started with hypernetworkers who don't do things will kill your group. They'll show up and they are important later on.
All of these people have a place eventually but they can't form the dynamic core. The whole goal is to eventually have a place for every type of person so they can contribute to the whole and find the space where they can be celebrated, but a group has to be larger before certain types of people can bring their core skills to bear.
This seems somewhat disproven by the existence of places like this? Strict moderation really does work wonders to prevent some of the worst behaviors. Not that you won't have problems, even here, from time to time. But it is hard to argue that things aren't kept much more civil than in other spots? And, in general, avoiding direct capital incentives to drive any questionable behavior seems a pretty safe route? I woul…
When you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in the same “park,” what kind of “ground rules” can we all truly agree on? It’s not like we’re gathered around the same dinner table, where a single moderator can keep things civil enough to avoid a brawl. Even then, heated arguments aren’t uncommon.
In an environment where one person’s truth can be another’s misinformation, I’m not sure moderation can ever be applied in a way that satisfies everyone involved.
This seems somewhat disproven by the existence of places like this? Strict moderation really does work wonders to prevent some of the worst behaviors. Not that you won't have problems, even here, from time to time. But it is hard to argue that things aren't kept much more civil than in other spots? And, in general, avoiding direct capital incentives to drive any questionable behavior seems a pretty safe route? I woul…
I believe that in most networks, there’s at least some level of moderation to prevent the worst behavior. But beyond that, moderation becomes a much trickier issue. When you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in the same “park,” what kind of “ground rules” can we all truly agree on? It’s not like we’re gathered around the same dinner table, where a single moderator can keep things civil enough to av…
Social media isn't the problem, people are the problem, and we still working on how to fix them.
I think that's an oversimplification. People have problems sure, but just like alcohol, social media can and does exacerbate them. The answer to dealing with the former is regulation. I'm not sure that is feasible for the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that in most networks, there’s at least some level of moderation to prevent the worst behavior. But beyond that, moderation becomes a much trickier issue. When you have hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in the same “park,” what kind of “ground rules” can we all truly agree on? It’s not like we’re gathered around the same dinner table, where a single moderator can keep things civil enough to av…
I think a key facet of good moderation is that it doesn't have to be on content, specifically. Behavior is often more troublesome. We can smirk about "tone police," but it really can make a huge difference.