• curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think the flaw is intentionally limited visibility by meta, which they are using engagement to track. Considering what they are trying to point out, what other metric do you think they should be using?

    • misk@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      You see this as Meta boosting wrong things. I see this as a problem with algorithmic timelines and boosting things in general. If someone is interested in a particular subject they should seek out sources of information on that topic and follow them, but by then you don’t care that wrong things are boosted, or that people like, dislike or are disinterested too much.

      • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I do not.

        I see it as meta intentionally lowering visibility, not as boosting other things. The root problem of that being algorithmic timelines rather than an actual timeline.

        Which this post also points out (indirectly).

        Again, what metric would you suggest to use to demonstrate this?

        • misk@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Isn’t adjusting weights of what’s being shown effectively the same as boosting?

          • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m not really interested in any debate around semantics, to me the answer is no, applying a -1 to entry a is not the same as a +1 to entry z, but its also completely irrelevant to the question.

            Again, what metric would you suggest to use to demonstrate this?