I’m seeing one too many people blaming social media for this and social media for that because it’s just simply - social media. I think about this because I believe that you shouldn’t blame the tool because it is a tool, but blame the person who uses the tool for their intent.
Which means I’m on the side of the camp that actually knows lots of people abuse social media and has it demonized. It’s absolutely silly to just blame a concept or an idea for just being as is. So everyone else is going around blaming and blaming social media for their problems. Not too much the individuals that have contaminated it with their empty-brained existences.
And we all know that some of the more popular social media platforms are controlled by devoid-of-reality sychophants in Zuck, Spez, Musk that sways and stirs the volume of people on their platform with their equally as devoid ideas in how to manage.
Social Media, whether you like it or not, has a use. It’s a useful tool to engage with eachother as close as possible. Might be a bit saturated with many platforms to choose from.
But I just think social media being blamed for just being as is, is such a backwards way of thinking.
Social media, like most things in life, has its good and bad sides. Places like twitter and Facebook have definitely been moved to the “bad” side of things through the use of an algorithm to curate the user’s experience and steer them towards socially harmful content. It’s much more difficult to do this on federated SM because anti social messaging doesn’t get amplified.
It’s not a panacea, and there will be attempts to corrupt it, but federated SM does give me hope that we can escape the rabbit hole of billionaire bro psychopaths.
It’s equally easy to do on federated social media, it’s just that no one found the incentive (yet?).
Why is it fairly easy?
It’s just an algorithm, all it takes is someone deciding they want to do it.
Huh? What algorithm? Where?
Lemmy has no algorithm in the way that you mean it.
Which is to say: there are a number of sort options like “top”, “hot” or “scaled” which work purely on the basis of upvotes or downvotes and don’t involve the actual content within the posts whatsoever.
It also has no “suggested” or “for you” and no personalization or data harvesting, the sort being based purely on upvotes or downvotes also doesn’t artificially skew the content politically in any which way.
It’s also completely open source so if that changed, not only would people find out immediately, but they’d be able to fork it and undo the change and maintain their own version.
Any instance then using an unfair sort feature would be defederated from.
So I don’t understand what you mean at all to be honest.