Okay, so it’s as narrow but it’s better because it fills out entire field of vision. Not sure how that relates to narrowness of the worldviews.

In normal human interactions you don’t need to measure validation either.

OP is complaining that he’s not the winner of the algorithm. I say fuck algorithms, let’s browse things chronologically. Makes you notice that guys like Randahl Fink produce repetitive and boring drumbeat content for those politically polarised.

I’m a data analyst because I like to stick to the facts so I’m not interested in anecdotes from self selected population because bias is off the charts here.

True, but we needn’t hand them even more control in a time where freedom of expression is already under siege. Persecution for things you said is one concern. Lowering the hurdles for things like being “banned” from participating in discourse, automated charges for viewing illicit content (particularly dangerous in case of identity theft) or doxxing by malicious actors are far more volatile.

I was always of opinion that if you were going to be surveilled or controlled online by government that’d happen regardless of whether you have a government ID or if your account is ID verified. We gave up privacy and freedom of who we contact the moment our communications moved to government sanctioned internet and telephony providers.

The primary strategic objectives of a state, regardless of government structure*, are those crucial for its survival: to defend its sovereignty against other states and to maintain coherence within.

My point is that internet is critical infrastructure and ability to exchange ideas on the internet is under siege from state and corporate actor funded troll farms which are now also force multiplied by LLMs. We formed states/governments so that we can act collectively in common interest, including everything from regulating market interactions to societal norms - they are the appropriate tool here since they’re selected mostly democratically.

I don’t want to be so free that I’m only free to be exploited by bullies exercising their freedoms.

That would be a concern always regardless of who is in power. I already outsourced military, police and healthcare to my government, I can deal with them taking care of checking if people online are people.

Can you prove that this post was „hidden” and not just ignored by algorithm that boosts content that will ensure longer engagement? Yes, algorithmic timelines are cancer, no need to invent conspiracy theories.

It could be that they hope It would incentivise community to maintain it better. Most emulators rely on game-specific hacks anyway so this sounds like they’re just outsourcing this.

Isn’t horizontal video exactly as narrow, just on different axis?

If something is public domain then it’s incompatible with copyleft licenses, like GPL under which Linux is licensed.

Linux team is trolling AI boosters who can’t certify their code is clean unless they trained models themselves.

I think most will agree that „think of the children” is a bs excuse, but if we know this then we shouldn’t debate this but the real reason behind enforcing verification of age, citizenship and people actually being people and not bots.

We’re being overran by LLM bullshit and we’re already overran by political actors astroturfing. We need a way out and that’s the only actionable solution on the table.

I’d rather not have those people on social networks either. Post news if you think they’re worth checking out but don’t make it your mission. We don’t really need more spaces where we get to be sold stuff to, political agendaposting included.

Let’s measure that by taking a look at a number of meaningful responses and discussions this has generated then? Likes and boosts don’t even mean that the person doing it read those posts.

When I talk to other people normally I don’t really consider if what I’m doing is going to make them like, save or subscribe to my posts, therefore I don’t need to measure it. More social person might but that’s still an unhealthy amount of reliance on external validation.

Have you considered that it’s not censorship and just that regular people are not interested in it, and that there are vastly different people on different platforms.

I don’t think social media should be used for people doing their jobs, that’s what RSS is for. I’m on social media to talk to people, not to be sold things.

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

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.

The flaw is that this content is getting less engagement on Twitter. Chasing engagement is how we got into horrible state of social media we are in now. If something is worth doing then it’ll be worth doing regardless of amount of likes you get.

Not only copyright is dead but so is licensing of things in general. This means there’ll be less original work from both commercial and non-commercial projects. Commercially there won’t be ways to profit so why bother. On the libre licensing front why would you contribute code to GPL licensed projects or release art under Creative Commons if it’s going to be license washed anyway?