this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
924 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
55728 readers
3101 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm actually glad to see what's been happening to Twitter because as much as it was started with good intentions and used to be a positive force for tech, it was also fundamentally flawed social media model. The basic problem was that only positive reactions were allowed - like, retweet, follow. This is NOT the town square, where you can get any reaction. It's more akin to a dictator's rally, where you're only allowed to clap and booing is not allowed. So it's no surprise that over time, it led to filter bubbles and the spread of mass delusions. Because you could say the craziest or most depraved thing, and all you'd hear is applause.
Idk if I would call retweeting positive reaction, especially when that retweet is 'look at this fucking moron'.
Yeah I think if anything twitter is a lesson in how even if you try to give users only positive ways to interact they will find ways to use them to interact negatively. Whether that be quote retweeting or ratioing.
what a save!
what a save! what a save!
Or using a laugh react as a thumbs down.
A laugh react is more insidious than a thumbs down.
My point was that a laugh react is meant to be a positive interaction (what you said was funny, and I enjoyed your contribution) but has been co-opted as a negative reaction (I'm laughing at what a willfully ignorant idiot you are) because FB only wanted to provide users with positive ways to react. My concern wasn't the level of negativity, only to provide the person to whom I was replying with a other example.
I think that was clear, my further comment was to highlight how far off (maybe), FB's implementation intent has been from the way people are now using it.
Yes, in a joke or funny post the laugh emoji is used as intended. But in a more serious announcement it is the equivalent of mocking disgust, hence more emotionally devastating than a thumbs down.
Eg say someone posts a somber poem about their late father - a laughing emoji is saying "fuck you, I laugh at your pain or your shitty poem or the memory of your dad".
The only question is, why, now that they've seen how it's used don't they let people disallow certain reactions. I'm assuming because emotional distress is more addictive..
Underrated observation.
What's "ratioing"
When a piece of content that doesn't allow downvotes, like a tweet, has lots more reposts than it does likes, the "ratio" is seen as proof the opinion was disagreed with, proportionally to the "ratio" itself.
When a reply to a tweet gets more engagement than the tweet itself.
I've seen it used to describe when a post has more comments than it has likes.
Makes sense thanks
Yup. That’s actually a problem when people dog pile on someone with a valid point.
I would say that the "positive vibes only" trait is part of it, but the far bigger problem was the character limit. Even when it was double from 140 to 280, that still doesn't not leave room for nuanced opinions. And then, the least nuanced opinions also become the most easily spreadable. Both traits really reward our worst instincts.
Downvoting and disliking can have their own issues too.
On Lemmy, downvoting isn't really that bad, especially compared to Reddit, and that's likely because of the federated model where instance admins can't trust the authenticity of votes. On Lemmy, voting effects the score on the post and that's it, as opposed to Reddit where taking on too many downvotes will shadow ban or lock your account, even if you still have thousands of karma in the subreddit where it happened. Those restrictions also apply site wide. Lemmy users also don't have a global karma count, which removes most temptation to delete posts that go negative and self censor. Of course there are probably many people out there who would delete a post with a 10:1 negative score ratio. Then again if it's that bad then it might not be a bad thing to delete it.
Both models have their place and pros and cons. I understand the nefarious intent behind this change on Youtube, but I feel like hiding negative feedback so that only the poster can see it has potential. It could deter bandwagon downvote brigading. Dislikes are really only relevant to the algorithm and the user who posted the content.
In Lemmy you can also disable the visualization of the voting system instance-side and client-side. I disable it, then, after writing my piece, it's out there. If people don't like it and they don't reply, well, deal with it.
Well said, I think that is the best explanation I have ever heard on the sites flaws.
I'm not sure which platform (fb, Twitter, YouTube???) it was, but it did count "unfollow" or "block user/block channel/block post" as negative feedback, limiting future reach of this person's posts to other users of the platform.
Yeah I've always thought of it as a "build your own cult" toolkit. On Twitter you too can try your hand at being a cult leader with followers that agree with everything you say.