A recent post with more comments will rank higher when using the ‘Active’ sorting method, hence why self-censored posts, which encourage people to call out the self-censoring as unnecessary (which I agree with) likely boost the self-censored post higher than it would’ve gotten without the censoring.
Just like with the other person I said this to: There are no algorithms that shadow-drop the topic like on other platforms. You knew exactly what I meant when I typed it, but chose a different path.
I’m not saying that lemmy’s algorithm is at all similar to mainstream social media’s dark patterns and addictive algorithms.
Lemmy’s use of a simple algorithm is necessary for this site to function at all (sorting newer posts from older posts is itself an algorithm), and does not imply that something nefarious is afoot. But it does use, by definition, an algorithm.
To state there are no algorithms is objectively false.
My observation is that the posts that self-censor happen to (likely not even intentionally) boost the popularity of said censored post due to the increased amount of comments against the self-censoring, as a result of the simple (non-addictive and non-exploitative) nature of Lemmy’s sorting algorithm.
Take note that so far, this post has received 12 comments in a short time just regarding the censoring, rocketing it up to be seen by more people, some of which will add their own thoughts on the censoring, and perpetuate its increased ranking in the feed.
The ‘Hot’ and ‘Active’ sorting options on your homepage is a primitive sorting algorithm, explained further in the lemmy docs themselves:
A recent post with more comments will rank higher when using the ‘Active’ sorting method, hence why self-censored posts, which encourage people to call out the self-censoring as unnecessary (which I agree with) likely boost the self-censored post higher than it would’ve gotten without the censoring.
Just like with the other person I said this to: There are no algorithms that shadow-drop the topic like on other platforms. You knew exactly what I meant when I typed it, but chose a different path.
I’m not saying that lemmy’s algorithm is at all similar to mainstream social media’s dark patterns and addictive algorithms.
Lemmy’s use of a simple algorithm is necessary for this site to function at all (sorting newer posts from older posts is itself an algorithm), and does not imply that something nefarious is afoot. But it does use, by definition, an algorithm.
To state there are no algorithms is objectively false.
My observation is that the posts that self-censor happen to (likely not even intentionally) boost the popularity of said censored post due to the increased amount of comments against the self-censoring, as a result of the simple (non-addictive and non-exploitative) nature of Lemmy’s sorting algorithm.
Take note that so far, this post has received 12 comments in a short time just regarding the censoring, rocketing it up to be seen by more people, some of which will add their own thoughts on the censoring, and perpetuate its increased ranking in the feed.
Great. You still knew what I meant.