@adamconover Same experience. My engagement numbers on twitter declined after the purchase. Why? No idea. I was still doing the same thing there as always (nerdy content). Mastodon engagement has been MUCH higher relatively.
I'm wondering if it's also the self-selected early adopters are also generally more likely to engage.
Well my suggestion is that it’s the differences in how the algorithms work.
Commercial social media algorithms increase controversy. QTing on The Foul Site and 😡 in the Zuckerverse are signs of controversy that the AI algos spot and rev up. AI Algos push people into bubbles with people with less in common.
Mastodon’s #HumanAlgorithm is simple: friends sharing cool things with friends. I trust my friends & if they say something’s cool I’ll give it a look.
@adamconover Twitter follow counts are pretty bloated with both bots and abandoned/inactive accounts. Similarly, I have about 1/6 the following here I have on Twitter (which still ain’t much), yet my posts here regularly get more engagement – both likes/boosts and replies – than I get on the birdsite.
Though I suspect the local/federated timelines probably help with that, too.
It's also worth noting that without said algorithm, engagement is infinitely more deliberate. You're literally seen because other people want you to also be seen. Everyone mutually supports each other.
@adamconover for me at least, I never bothered to engage with my celebrity follows on Twitter, because I'm just one voice in so many, and I can't be bothered to speak if I don't expect to be heard.
Here, I feel like if my replies are ignored it's because whatever I had to say wasn't actually interesting, not because it was lost in a deluge.
@adamconover I think it is that there are relatively few people such as yourself on Mastodon. On twitter, you can have a huge number of followers, but that does not mean they ever see your posts. Everything depends on the "algorithm".
[ But I don't really understand, I am just guessing ]
