Dan GoodinIt should be clear now that it was and remains a catastrophic mistake for people to view privately owned social media platforms as any kind of public resource. People didn't know better a decade ago. They have no excuse now.
Guillaume Rossolini@dangoodin last hold out are streaming platforms?
Thad@dangoodin People *should* have known better a decade ago; we went through this same thing with AOL back at the turn of the century.
I'm afraid the necessity of open platforms and decentralization is something people are going to have to re-learn every generation.
Cassandrich@Thad @dangoodin Untill stuff like this is taught in school like it should be. That's how we're supposed to avoid each generation repeating the same mistakes.
LisPi@dalias @Thad @dangoodin In the same vein, it certainly is quite interesting how the history of labor rights, corporate abuses and monopolies & our own equivalent of antitrust was completely absent during the entirety of my schooling.
Jim Fenton 🇺🇸🇨🇦@dangoodin By “privately owned” do you mean privately held companies or any corporate ownership? I’m not sure what the viable alternatives are.
Bruno Nicoletti@dangoodin I’d go further and say _any_ automated platform that relies on advertising for revenue will always end up deeply enshitified as they have to chase “engagement”. And what engages most is outrage. So we end up with systems, that by design, drag you further and further in the world of grift and crazies.
Jo - pièce de résistance@bjn @dangoodin
I have to strongly disagree about what engages most. If Mastodon is a platform without that variable...then I can confidently say my most popular posts are just posts about beautiful things. I get the most boosts, likes, comments, etc. on really nice things most.
But I was throttled first by ad-based social media and that is how they get you to dance for the devil to get seen and they groom and channel the outrage type of engagement, rather than the joyful kind.
Jo, it sounds like you strongly agree (not disagree) with Bruno that engagement is considerably different (and better) on platforms not supported by ads. Unless I'm misreading something.
My experience on ad-supported platforms like Shitter was that outrage DID drive the most engagement. Here on Mastodon things have been much different, and I think Bruno was saying something similar. I read your post as largely agreeing a well.
¯_ (ツ)_/¯
@dangoodin @JoBlakely What Dan said. Automated commercial platforms are not the same as Mastodon, they are very different beasts. I try to curate my commercial social media feeds very heavily to avoid as much of the grift as possible. But I still get Jordan Peterson and worse pushed to me for no obvious reason.
My point is they made outrage the algorithm on purpose. Like media covering Trump all the time, giving him air. He was not popular, just made to look popular, bc everyone else gets ignored, pushed down, not funded or promoted. It's hate influencers & people doing damage control. It only drove the most engagement bc those people were not throttled. Views are 1st barrier to any engagement. They are making personality choices who gets views. This is the outrage algorithm.
I certainly agree with that, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bruno did too.
b4ux1t3 
#1️⃣@JoBlakely @bjn @dangoodin it's a pretty well-documented bit of psychology that folks are more likely to engage with outrage/negativity than the alternatives.
I'm not saying it's always true for everyone, but the sheer success of that kind of content speaks to the general truth of that psychology.
Edit: and it could well be that the atmosphere of the fediverse is leading to a difference here. I, too, get a lot of engagement on positivity and beauty.
I suspect there's a double whammy at play here. As Chris notes, many people have a natural inclination to engage more with negativity. Then, as Jo notes and algorithms promote that negative content over less negative stuff. What a toxic stew.
@dangoodin @b4ux1t3 @bjn
Mastodon is that 'control' in a scientific test, where nothing is done to alter the algorithm, to compare to. Is it more rageful here? Sure there are problems, but those hate accounts are not doing well here. People are avoiding them, more than engaging.
I'd like to see a study properly comparing these.
Mastodon is that 'control' in a scientific test, where nothing is done to alter the algorithm, to compare to. Is it more rageful here? Sure there are problems, but those hate accounts are not doing well here. People are avoiding them, more than engaging.
I'd like to see a study properly comparing these.
Fair point.
@JoBlakely @dangoodin @b4ux1t3 There’s no sophisticated algorithm in Mastodon though. My feed is simply who I follow, not what strangers have upvoted and the platform pushes to me in the hope of keeping on there so they can sell my eyes to advertisers. That automation of engagement, and our tendacy to engage with outrage, is what drives the platforms to deliver insane crap. Ontop of that you have bad actors like Musk and troll farms, and you get a perfect storm of lies.
Krupo@JoBlakely @dangoodin @b4ux1t3 @bjn yup when someone goes unhinged and ranty here it feels much easier to mute or ignore on so many levels.
As I've said before the big platforms actually started filling me with a sense of dread when I got any sort of big engagement on a post, whereas here it's generally constructive discussions and often fascinating insights. Or just friendly affirmation.
@b4ux1t3
What were they comparing it to? What is the 'test'? It is just presumption and commentary and I don't think the studies are worth shit scientifically. I want to know their parameters.
Are they only comparing one oligarch blood sucking social media platform to another?
Did they look through history?
Sure when important things are going on, people are going to be upset and have things to say, but it's not what people like to engage with. It may be what some must.
@JoBlakely I mean, it's not just in the context of social media.
DOI Numbers:
10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383 - Not All Emotions Are Created Equal: The Negativity Bias in
Social–Emotional Development, 2008
10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 - Bad is stronger than good, 2001
10.1002/ejsp.2420220502 - Positive-negative asymmetry or "When the heart needs a reason", 1992
This concept of a negativity bias goes back much further than digital social media does.
@b4ux1t3
Many psychologists and Psychiatrists themselves have that negativity bias. So their seeing it like that is their own projections tured into 'authority'. Most diagnosis are rooted in only seeing the negative. That is their special skillset. Most of the DSM is negativity bias.
Many psychologists and Psychiatrists themselves have that negativity bias. So their seeing it like that is their own projections tured into 'authority'. Most diagnosis are rooted in only seeing the negative. That is their special skillset. Most of the DSM is negativity bias.
@JoBlakely again (sorry for the rapid messages), it's a strong possibility that the (well-documented) negativity bias of individuals can be offset by things like level of education, emotional upbringing, societal norms where they live.
I'm not debating that it's the _only_ force at play here, I'm just pointing out that there is very strong evidence that many, of not most, people are better engaged by negativity than by positivity.
@JoBlakely I make it a point to not engage with negativity unless I think it's genuine or important that I do. And I did that before I learned about the psychological bias.
But you and I are an n of 2. :D
@b4ux1t3
I don't believe it. People get more engaged and motivated by a rousing encouraging speech. They get remembered for generations. That snarky line will be forgotten. That's why oligarchs prefer it.
People get motivated when they feel supported, can connect without having to compete with one another to connect.
The whole format is outrageous. It just breeds outrage.
Dec [{(
)}]@b4ux1t3 @JoBlakely @bjn @dangoodin
I can't find the meme now, but it goes like this:
"Murphy's Law says that if you post something incorrect online, more people will rush in to correct your mistake."
(lots of engagement)
(including the correct answer)
-versus-
"Does anyone know the name of that law about posting something incorrect online?"
(no engagement)
@dec23k @b4ux1t3 @JoBlakely @bjn @dangoodin lol yes it's a meme but it is also an accurate description of Reddit. ;)
Maria BustillosWe're making a cooperatively-owned publishing platform for journalists here:
Mastodon MigrationCool. Any plans to integrate Flaming Hydra with the fediverse in any way?
Heck yes, we have a Masto account and are working on how to manage it effectively before and after launch, and will welcome any and all advice on this and other ways to help advance the distributed web.
Excellent. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you think there is anything this account could do to help promote your effort.
Thank you! I will.
Dracocide :firefish:
Shoq 🌿@maria @dangoodin It’s nice to see people wanting to support any alternative journalism platforms. How much of the subscription revenue will actually be allocated to the author’s kitty, vs production and administration costs? How long must an author commit in order to guarantee their share?
The first year's administration costs are borne by Brick House and its previously existing subscribers/donors. For the first year, 100% of Flaming Hydra's subscription revenue will be shared each month between authors in good standing
(good standing means filing agreed monthly contributions)
After the first year, the group is scheduled to meet to elect new leadership and make adjustments in governing documents (it'll take us that long to figure out how to run this thing)
(we've been working these details out for a long time!!!)
@maria @dangoodin It’s nice (and important) to see people putting real effort into ideas like this. And putting real thought into how to do it. It should only trend. Good luck.
Race Bannon@maria @dangoodin Great idea!
Albert CardonaWe knew better. MySpace, Tumblr, LiveJournal, even IRC Freenode, all crashed and burned after trying to squeeze their users. Whereas forums run by non-profits or by individuals as not-for-profit continue to exist and thrive, never catering for the masses though. What the fediverse adds is precisely federation and ease of use for the non-technical. An excellent asset and feature-set.
Ben Hockenhull@dangoodin Even back in the BBS days, this was true, though the impact was substantially smaller. We learn this lesson cyclically.
Andreas K@dangoodin
People knew better.
People did not want to acknowledge it, as it's contrary it their libertarian indoctrinated ideology.
That's hugely different from they didn't knew. They knew. Their biases didn't allow to accept them to accept the facts.
@Gargron
Justice for Sepulveda Martinez
DocHolliday
io@dangoodin can I mirror my postings to a backup account? my people?
@dangoodin They didn't know if they weren't paying attention.
#Usenet had existed (and still does), as had #forums (same deal), the scenario had already played out in various ways. Anyone not purposely ignoring the history of communications on networks knew full well what would happen.
#WebForum #Forum
#Usenet had existed (and still does), as had #forums (same deal), the scenario had already played out in various ways. Anyone not purposely ignoring the history of communications on networks knew full well what would happen.
#WebForum #Forum
Gminks@dangoodin
A whole bunch of us knew better
A whole bunch of us knew better
MegatronicThronBanks@dangoodin
Said that about Facebook for years, and I wasn't the only one to do so. Basically:
"The moment you start bending the content to your own purposes, you stop being an institution and go back to being a website."
Said that about Facebook for years, and I wasn't the only one to do so. Basically:
"The moment you start bending the content to your own purposes, you stop being an institution and go back to being a website."
Jennifer@dangoodin Facebook was an amazing resource in 2011 when tornadoes knocked out power in my entire region. We found out where to find gas and supplies, where to volunteer, all sorts of stuff. It only went downhill from there and I ended up deleting my account
C.I'm going to disagree with that last bit - people *did* know better a decade ago, at least some of us. Social spaces on the net long predated the arrival of big tech and commercial social sites - we used email and #newsgroups and the Unix `talk` and `finger` protocols and #IRC and other things to keep in touch with people, from the person at the terminal next to yours, to someone at a university halfway around the world.
We warned about the big #commercial sites when they arrived.
The Doctor@dangoodin They didn't then. They'll forget soon. They'll do it again.
Alerta! Alerta!@dangoodin We should have known 10 years ago that privately owned infrastructure is a problem.
10 years ago we might not have considered social media to become infrastructure though....
BenjiButo 
@dangoodin to be honest it felt weird to begin with. I knew servers cost like a lot. Designing a website was way harder back then (like coding in notepad or vim hard). People earned good money from that.
And suddenly there is a website call facesomething which offers you this cool stuff all for free.
We might not have known it, but we had hunches!
And suddenly there is a website call facesomething which offers you this cool stuff all for free.
We might not have known it, but we had hunches!
Mark Gardner@dangoodin Private ownership enables the #fediverse as well. It is not a “public resource.”
You’re using @jerry's #Mastodon server, and although he graciously accepts (your?) donations, it’s his property.
Arrangements may vary across the rest of the fediverse but they still rest on property rights, as does the hosting and network infrastructure.
The issue is choice, which requires #PrivateProperty and vice versa.