Yeah, most of what the article complains about is algorithmic social media and how it boosts engagement of any kind, whether positive or negative. This leads to “extremist” takes gaining ground easier then moderate takes. Combined with algorithmic siloing, echo chambers etc. That we’ve heard a million times, make people more radical and disconnected from reality.
The “algorithm” most people use on lemmy is just most up voted, so controversial takes rarely rise to the top. A lot of the stuff would be considered controversial outside of here, but within lemmy there’s a “hard left” consensus where the moderates are probably democratic socialists.
The “algorithm” most people use on lemmy is just most up voted, so controversial takes rarely rise to the top. A lot of the stuff would be considered controversial outside of here, but within lemmy there’s a “hard left” consensus where the moderates are probably democratic socialists.
Right. And that is the radicalizing echo chamber effect - affective polarization - the article talks about.
That is to say, if I go to all, probably half of the top 10 or 20 posts will be low context memes or screenshots of Twitter talking about Republicans doing horrible things - because those are what’s most upvoted. And if I go into comments I’m going to see calls for violence and censorship and rejections of compromise and common ground. And if I got my news and my understanding of the world from Lemmy, it would be easy to believe a whole bunch of people in the United States have given up on civil society and committed themselvesto political violence.
Sorting posts by most upvoted and most active is a simple algorithm, but it is an algorithm, and it does leads to the same harms the article discusses - because low effort content can be read and upvoted quickly while scrolling through Lemmy, so an unsourced meme or one paragraph Twitter post gets hundreds of upvotes, while longform articles only get a handful of upvotes because people don’t want to take the time to read them while scrolling.
Of course, the most passionate, angry, dramatic, and emotion-provoking memes get the most upvotes and go to the top of the algorithm. And because Lemmy is full of leftists, the memes that make them passionate and angry are mostly about right wing people doing bad stuff.
There’s a common saying on the left, “you are not immune to propaganda”. Similarly, you are not immune to the harms of algorithmic social media, whether you use Lemmy or Reddit.
(And that’s not even going into how certain instances post actual, literal, propaganda, which is a whole other story.)
Lemmy also benefits from not tracking total karma or whatever. Per-post or per-comment scores at most.
From my experience, Beehaw disabling downvotes furthers this even more. This means that people can either voice their disagreement, report the post/comment for violating the rules, or ignore it and move on. There’s no way to anonymously “punish” a post you disagree with (unless it violates the rules), and not as much incentive to stick to the echo chamber either.
I’ve never gotten the point of upvoting or downvoting as the main for of engagement with “social” media. I may do one or the other once a week when I get a chuckle or see an absurd take on journalism that isn’t worth engaging with, but simply clicking an icon is scarcely participation.
People with actual things to say is far more satisfying than facing a Hatfield-McCoy standoff.
Isn’t it only true for algorithmic feed social media? Is lemmy safe from that over-representation?
Yeah, most of what the article complains about is algorithmic social media and how it boosts engagement of any kind, whether positive or negative. This leads to “extremist” takes gaining ground easier then moderate takes. Combined with algorithmic siloing, echo chambers etc. That we’ve heard a million times, make people more radical and disconnected from reality.
The “algorithm” most people use on lemmy is just most up voted, so controversial takes rarely rise to the top. A lot of the stuff would be considered controversial outside of here, but within lemmy there’s a “hard left” consensus where the moderates are probably democratic socialists.
Right. And that is the radicalizing echo chamber effect - affective polarization - the article talks about.
That is to say, if I go to all, probably half of the top 10 or 20 posts will be low context memes or screenshots of Twitter talking about Republicans doing horrible things - because those are what’s most upvoted. And if I go into comments I’m going to see calls for violence and censorship and rejections of compromise and common ground. And if I got my news and my understanding of the world from Lemmy, it would be easy to believe a whole bunch of people in the United States have given up on civil society and committed themselvesto political violence.
Sorting posts by most upvoted and most active is a simple algorithm, but it is an algorithm, and it does leads to the same harms the article discusses - because low effort content can be read and upvoted quickly while scrolling through Lemmy, so an unsourced meme or one paragraph Twitter post gets hundreds of upvotes, while longform articles only get a handful of upvotes because people don’t want to take the time to read them while scrolling.
Of course, the most passionate, angry, dramatic, and emotion-provoking memes get the most upvotes and go to the top of the algorithm. And because Lemmy is full of leftists, the memes that make them passionate and angry are mostly about right wing people doing bad stuff.
There’s a common saying on the left, “you are not immune to propaganda”. Similarly, you are not immune to the harms of algorithmic social media, whether you use Lemmy or Reddit.
(And that’s not even going into how certain instances post actual, literal, propaganda, which is a whole other story.)
Lemmy also benefits from not tracking total karma or whatever. Per-post or per-comment scores at most.
From my experience, Beehaw disabling downvotes furthers this even more. This means that people can either voice their disagreement, report the post/comment for violating the rules, or ignore it and move on. There’s no way to anonymously “punish” a post you disagree with (unless it violates the rules), and not as much incentive to stick to the echo chamber either.
I’ve never gotten the point of upvoting or downvoting as the main for of engagement with “social” media. I may do one or the other once a week when I get a chuckle or see an absurd take on journalism that isn’t worth engaging with, but simply clicking an icon is scarcely participation.
People with actual things to say is far more satisfying than facing a Hatfield-McCoy standoff.