you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments