305
submitted 11 months ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] moitoi@feddit.de -5 points 11 months ago

I agree. It looks me time to know how mastodon works. But, it's how it maintain the quality. You can't have quality and quantity in a social media.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

I actually disagree with that. It’s theoretically possible to have quality and quantity at the same time. But to do so, it can’t be based on an engagement algorithm, because engagement typically correlates with low quality posts.

This is why you’ll never see quality and quantity together from a profit-seeking platform - they are incentivized to shovel you low quality stuff that’s highly engaging.

[-] moitoi@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago

Algorithms doesn't change much. Back in the days when we used mostly forums, and chats, and... all without algorithms, we had the same trend with quality and quantity. The quality went lower with the number of people using them. The small niche forum maintained the quality and for some are still up. The biggest quickly shrink.

The same applied to the first social media and the newer.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

An algorithm that prioritizes quality (instead of engagement) DOES change it though. Let’s not pretend that all algorithms are the same.

[-] Dee@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Let’s not pretend that all algorithms are the same.

But if we don't, how can we act superior to people who use algorithm based platforms? /s

[-] moitoi@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

You're pretending what not the same as facts. I can pretend a lot. It's how I built general statement fitting the majority.

In fact, it doesn't work like this. Whatever you use, the quality shrink with the quantity. You will have an equilibrium at some point but even with algorithms targeting quality, it will shrink.

The algorithms will continually serve something, low are high quality doesn't matter. If I use an algorithm priorizing high quality content on a poop emoji platform, it will give me poop emoji. What's matter the most is what is posted. And, you can't control the quality of the post.

It's how mainstream algorithm based social medias actually work. You have farms of content adapting themselves at each algorithm change.

So, it's why the quality depends of how difficult it's to use the social media.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I think you’re confusing what the word “algorithm” means. It could be literally anything! You could even write an algorithm that serves you the single most interesting, high quality, perfectly relevant piece of information found on the internet that day.

Yes obviously mainstream algorithms are designed like you said. But there’s no reason why they have to operate like that.

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
305 points (95.3% liked)

Fediverse

28530 readers
526 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS