Platforms like Reddit and Tumblr need to optimize for growth. We need to have growth, but it is does not be optimized for it.
Yeah, things will work like a little elitist club, but all newcomers need to do is find someone who is willing to vouch for them.
Just add “account age” to the list of metrics when evaluating their trust rank. Any account that is less than a week old has a default score of zero.
Why does have it to be one or the other?
Why not use all these different metrics to build a recommendation system?
Well, I am on record saying that we should get rid of one-dimensional voting systems so I see your point.
But if anything, there is nothing stopping us from using both metrics (and potentially more) to build our feed.
That would be only true if people only marked that they trust people that conform with their worldview.
The indieweb already has an answer for this: Web of Trust. Part of everyone social graph should include a list of accounts that they trust and that they do not trust. With this you can easily create some form of ranking system where bots get silenced or ignored.
You were so eager to come up with a jab at other people that you seem to have ignored the second paragraph. It is pretty clear that you could benefit from a bit of introspection to look what you could offer to the world, instead of just trying to put everyone down.
Wishing you well.
Most people want social media to read and talk about the mundane things that are interesting to them (like sports, or their hobbies, or some new cool bar they want to go on, or some interesting places to travel) instead of using it to doomscroll and display outrage.
If all you want from social media is a place that constantly keeps you anxious and reminds you of how little power you have to change the things you are so pointless worrying about… then sure, Lemmy is more than enough as it is.
This would be amazing to be integrated with Voyager. People could migrate to Reddit via Fediverser and clone only their subreddits to the device.
It doesn’t have to be this way. There are instances focused only on basketball, soccer, American Football, Tennis…
It would be great to have people like you on https://fediverser.network. Follow the subreddits that you miss from there and use to promote the Lemmy alternatives.
And I hope to see you soon on !nba@nba.space. :)
I agree so much with you, I am running a commercial provider for Fediverse services for almost five years. The problem is that we are still a very tiny minority relative to the amount of internet users.
No one is forcing you to see them, especially given that this is an open source system with open source clients.
Also, how much are you paying/contributing to the developers, admins and moderators in order to avoid the need of alternative methods of funding?
To be quite honest, I wouldn’t mind sponsored posts as a way to support a community or instance, as long as they were completely disclosed as so and if the sponsor had no control over the moderation.
**
**
Fun fact: argument and discussion can be synonyms, but they can also have distinct meanings.
It’s amusing to see this much projection. You say that I can’t read, then proceed to misunderstand a basic sentence. You say that you don’t respond because you think I will insult you, then resort to name calling.
Let us find something better to do with our lives, ok? Have a good one.
There is no argument, dear child. There is only a value judgement being made by a silly cartoon and you suffering because you refuse to admit that you do not share those values.
Why you need to resorting to name calling and hiding yourself behind “others” just to avoid facing this uncomfortable truth, I do not know.
I argue many people don’t care about “software freedom” and MIT is better for those people.
Which is completely besides the point of the post and carries no value in the conversation.
P.S: you are still talking about “other people”. Can you try to make any value judgement and own it? How about “I don’t care about software freedom and prefer to get free stuff”?
Ok, which part of “multiple metrics” is not clear here?
Every risk analysis will have multiple factors. The idea is not to always have an absolute perfect ranking system, but to build a classifier that is accurate enough to filter most of the crap.
Email spam filters are not perfect, but no one inbox is drowning in useless crap like we used to have 20 years ago. Social media bots are presenting the same type of challenge, why can’t we solve it in the same way?