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