1. Forum
  2. DOVE-Net
  3. Internet

  • Re: Mastodon - Wich Serve

    From MIKE POWELL@VERT/CAPCITY2/UUMOES to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Thu Jan 15 19:41:00 2026
    How does anyone know how the algorithm is bending perception of
    people's posts?

    I want a social network that shows a chronological list of posts from
    people I choose to follow. Is that so hard?

    Sort of like a BBS? ;) I am not certain why that is so difficult but it apparently is. I also like things in chronological order.

    --- BgNet 1.0ß12 - moe's tavern * 1-502-875-8938 * moetiki.ddns.net:27
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to MIKE POWELL on Fri Jan 16 08:16:13 2026
    MIKE POWELL wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

    Sort of like a BBS? ;) I am not certain why that is so difficult but
    it apparently is. I also like things in chronological order.

    You can't make as much money selling ads when people don't see directed
    posts. FaceTwitter can sell ads by saying we'll target your ads at 2nd
    amendment, furry wearing Firefly fans in the midwest, create an ad
    stream, and make more money than if they couldn't target ads.

    I'm sure there's some editorial direction happening there - boosting
    posts on one side of a political argument, dampening the other side's
    posts, etc.

    Interesting because there were so many arguments about Section 230 of
    the Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity
    from user-posted content - as long as they make a good-faith effort in
    restricting offensive material.

    It used to be that if a platform could argue that they didn't (or by
    nature of the amount of content, couldn't) exert any editorial control
    over their content, they could be found not liable, that they had
    common carrier status. Cubby vs. Compuserve (1991) was a case that
    resonated with BBSes back then.

    We responded by not deleting anything. :)






    --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.
  • From MIKE POWELL@VERT/CAPCITY2/UUMOES to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Sat Jan 17 08:49:00 2026
    I'm sure there's some editorial direction happening there - boosting
    posts on one side of a political argument, dampening the other side's
    posts, etc.

    I am also sure of that. Which side may depend some on which platform.
    There was a special on PBS a couple of years back about how (mostly)
    TikTok was shadow banning people, not so much about politics (but some)
    and more about being too old, too dark, and a few other things.

    I believe it is much more likely that "the algorithms" are responsible for misinforming the public, more so than any foreign actors.

    --- BgNet 1.0ß12 - moe's tavern * 1-502-875-8938 * moetiki.ddns.net:27
  • From MIKE POWELL@VERT/CAPCITY2/UUMOES to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Sat Jan 17 08:54:00 2026
    Hit send too soon.

    Interesting because there were so many arguments about Section 230 of
    the Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity
    from user-posted content - as long as they make a good-faith effort in
    restricting offensive material.

    It used to be that if a platform could argue that they didn't (or by
    nature of the amount of content, couldn't) exert any editorial control
    over their content, they could be found not liable, that they had
    common carrier status. Cubby vs. Compuserve (1991) was a case that
    resonated with BBSes back then.

    IMHO, the algorithm is more than capable of editorial control and
    exercises a level of it high enough that most social media platforms
    should no longer be immune.

    Their money will likely continue to make them so, though.
    --- BgNet 1.0ß12 - moe's tavern * 1-502-875-8938 * moetiki.ddns.net:27