@wonkothesane I'll be real with you: this platform needs both better tools for those with large accounts and it needs a culture which isn't quite so trigger-happy to push popular accounts off the platform.
There are frictions here which are very hard to understand for the majority of its users.
Little confused when you say culture that isn't trigger happy to push big creators off the platform.
So from my perspective, I have shared your video in two places and star'd the post.
I don't have optics on any aggressive actions towards you, but I'm also not looking THAT hard. In what ways are people trying to push you off?
@BlueBee I think if you go to his posts he explains what the experience has been on Mastodon:
https://mas.to/@TechConnectify/112995453946857071
@[email protected] I have argued many times, and will continue to do so, that one of the biggest problems Mastodon has is that other people cannot see a lot of the crap that I see, AND there aren't any effective ways for the crowd to reinforce good behavior and discourage bad behavior. Until people sit with that reality, this simply isn't a functional social media tool for me.
Ah, I didn't realize there was more that he had spoken about.
That is one thing (of many) I am frustrated by with social media. The sort of disjointed nature of it. He had made the arguments in the past, but it wasn't in THAT post.
I'm not sure what else can be done except begin regulating posts, but a central regulator is obviously bad. Too much power in too few hands.
I think we should probably have our own review structure of people kind of like steam does for games. But you get to say who's reviews you trust and you ignore everyone else's.
Where you and me and other people can say if we trust someone or not and then if you trust them their opinion of people affects the trust levels of others. And then allow people to be sortable by your personal trust levels for them.
I don't know if I'm explaining that well, but I don't want to spend too much time on it right now. Hopefully it gives the jist of the idea. If someone is a troll, I don't want to see them. But I don't trust a giant corporation to tell me who is and isn't a troll. YouTube surfaced Jordan Peterson to me and that man is an idiot.
So much of the pain people feel reading comments would be alleviated if we had a bit more proof required before allowing people to take up air time. I'm not saying turn people off, but label them differently, trolls shouldn't show up the same as someone who will engage with you with care.
This isn't context collapse lol.
And the reason why I'm talking about video games is because video games are less complex to review than people, and if you can't write a program that can review them, then you can't write a program that can review people.
On how this relates to his issue, he is saying that the problem is he gets 1 to 1 good to bad takes. A big part of this is that he has no method of sorting these takes. They are all viewed equally. So no matter if it's a well respected scientist or a troll, they all look the same.
Some method of determining trust is required, but if you give this to a single entity like with Blue sky it's too much power for an individual entity to have. But it still needs to be solved as the original poster has stated.
We have a giant pool of very capable reviewers who could help the larger creators sort through people and find who they should probably be listening to, but they lack the levers to provide that service.
Technology Connections
🅱🅻🆄🅴🅱️
OldGeek
alcinnz