2026-04-09 18:04 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2026-04-09 18:11
To illustrate what I mean more clearly, look at the top comments/replies for the NASA Artemis posts, as an example. ...It's basically all conspiracy theorists, and government skeptics. Twitter's focusing the Artemis posts on them because *it's what they want to see*, and most engaging for them. In the EFF's case, I'm not just talking about Musk's influence. The algorithm will only show the EFF to users who *would be highly engaged by it*. E.g., angry skeptics who wouldn't be swayed by the EFF anyway, or fans who already agree with the EFF. It's literally not going to show the EFF to people who need to see it, as Twitter's metrics would show it as unengaging. *** This is the "false image" I keep trying to dispel. Twitter is less and less an "even spread" of exposure like people think it is, like it *sort of* used to be, more-and-more a hyper focused bubble of what you want to hear, and *only* what you want to hear. All the changes Musk is making are amplifying that. Maybe that's fine for some orgs, but there's no point in the EFF staying in that kind of environment, regardless of ethics.
-
@Zorque@lemmy.world 2026-04-09 20:04
I was listening to a podcast (informal morning show from one of the guys who founded roosterteeth) and he talked about how he got off Twitter and Facebook and everything well before the pandemic... but has been needing to get back on them just to connect with others in his community.