@scottjenson @carnage4life threads and bluesky are single monolithic platforms. masto federated. so would likely depend on which masto server someone's posting on i'd guess as a starter...

also, purely anecdotally/for my own part, there's less of a culture of boosting/liking/trying to make things go viral for the algorithm. lack of apparent engagement may not signal lack of people actually reading posts/following links/etc.

@patrick_h_lauke So is the only alternative "number go DOWN" metrics? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to find a way to have both be possible: how can we keep our soul but still have a diverse community.

My concern is that your comment uses the "we don't want a number go up mentality" argument to hide the fact that our community is a mono culture.

@scottjenson @patrick_h_lauke
When Twitter went full Nazi Bar, a lot of writers and journalists I followed there came to Mastodon, where I duly followed them.

Within a month, virtually all of them went silent here, but post regularly on Bluesky, where I maintain an account primarily to stake my username.

Since posting on two or more sites is a cut&paste exercise, I don't understand their behavior at all.

When broadcast media was invented, the only way to know if people were listening, then watching, was by sampling surveys.
Now, it's follower counts, or god forbid, boosts and likes. I do *read* print columnists whose opinions I don't like, and I often skip reading ones I do like if the topic holds no interest for me.

Accordingly, I follow a lot of people here, but get more from the posts *they* boost, from people I don't follow.

So there's really no metric feedback for hundreds of posts I read every week, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be publishing here.

I do often boost items I like, but receive virtually no feedback from my small population of followers, whose change in numbers I don't track, but assume if they're still following me, they appreciate, or at least don't hate what I boost. My own posts are mostly whispers into the void (per the feedback), but that doesn't stop me from making them, and I assume they're glanced at the same as I do with what scrolls through my home feed.

@RealGene

So, what they’re looking for is evidence of being seen? Evidence of positive reactions? And without this evidence they’re unlikely to invest their time?

On my first reading of op I thought the primary point was about mastodenizens being less critical of “ai”-philes. Now I’m not sure it was.

@scottjenson

If you had to pick, is your point about a cultural dynamic here around “AI” or about engagement metrics?

@CptSuperlative @RealGene

I was trying to make a point about "any group that doesn't feel welcome" here on mastodon, which you think would be a welcome topic. There are many and it's been widely discussed how a small number of people "tone police" chase off new users. (Spinning up your own instance is a tired and meaningless reply)

Foolishly, I picked an AI journalist as an example which just set off fires. Half the people were mad at me for "pushing AI slop", the other half saying that calling for more tolerance was "letting in fascists". There is no debate to be had with that framing.

I've been told a dozen times to "read the room" which is a pretty ominous warning. It basically admits the problem: there is "a room" of people that 'holds the line' on the right thing to say and believe.