One of the most upvoted active post on lemmy.world right now is this one:
https://lemmy.world/post/51264044
Why do you upvote this content? Is kuntuckygirl1 someone famous i should know about? This post doesn’t look like anything special, anyone could have wrote it so why reposting and upvoting content from x and from people we don’t know anything about?
There are hundreds similar examples
In your example the topic and phrasing is being upvoted, not the original locstion it was posted or who wrote the text. Same for the vast majority of posts.
Where the content originates from is irrelevant. Posting and engaging with political content like that on social media more often than not is a kind of roll-call rather than an argument. It’s not directed at the outgroup but rather at the people who already agree. It shows which team you are on, that you have the approved opinions, and that you belong. That is why the posts run on slogans and moral sorting, and why disagreement gets mostly met with hostility. They’re waving an idea rather than stress-testing it.
An eloquent description of everything I hate about social media (yes, including the fediverse).
Most people don’t actually want a discussion, they just want to be told they’re right.
Where the content originates from is irrelevant.
Wrong and the nazi owner of x is the perfect example: if you share whatever good thing he may post you are also giving visibility to all the other bullshit he says
Right, so this post is just more of the same moral grandstanding that I highlighted in my response rather than a genuine question.
We are on a decentralized and free platform, I’m genuinely asking why people are upvoting reposts from x and sharing content that they could simply write themself. You said it’s irrelevant where the content originates from and i argued that it does indeed matter because it gives these users and x visibility
I think when you start your response with the word “Wrong… and here’s why,” it seems that you are not open to a genuine discussion. Like iconoclast mentioned, it appears that you are looking for people to agree with your viewpoint and not have a genuine discussion.
Just a suggestion, but if you want people to engage in your question, you could acknowledge what they said first, and then ask your next point in the form of a question. “Wouldn’t that only increase visibility for X? Would it promote the fediverse more to copy the text directly here?”
You are a much better example of what you are describing. Instead of arguing that i’m not open to a genuine discussion bring in the question yourself if you don’t agree with me. Like it or not, it is not irrelevant where the content originates from because it gives visibility and space to x and the users there.
Sure, I’ll try to practice what I preach. What do you hope to get from this discussion?
As an aside, I don’t disagree with you and am not really arguing any side. I recognized a behavior that anyone would have a blindspot for, and am trying to give friendly feedback. The phrases like “wrong” or “like it or not” are rigid and come off as not open for discussion. I try to use words like “appear” or “seem,” because my observation may be how I’m seeing it and not what you intend. I believe you that you may be trying to have a genuine discussion, but that’s not the tone of the verbiage.
If I had something stuck to my back, I would want someone to point it out to me. I’m trying to do the thing I hope someone else would do for me. This might be a blindspot between your intent and your verbiage. You don’t have to listen to my advice. We can both believe what we want to believe and go separate ways.
Sure, I’ll try to practice what I preach. What do you hope to get from this discussion?
By asking people why they keep upvoting and sharing content from a proprietary platform owned by a nazi perhaps i can understand better their reasoning and help them and encourage them to do better.
The phrases like “wrong” or “like it or not” are rigid and come off as not open for discussion. I try to use words like “appear” or “seem,” because my observation may be how I’m seeing it and not what you intend. I believe you that you may be trying to have a genuine discussion, but that’s not the tone of the verbiage.
There is nothing wrong in using “wrong” or “like it or not” in a discussion that is already open, if you are triggered by these word it sound like they are hurting your ego perhaps because you don’t like to even assume the possibility that you are wrong. It’s fine to assume that the following statement is wrong: “advertising does not give visibility to companies”
So should everyone who supports Ukraine stop interacting with Lemmy because the creators are tankies?
So should everyone who supports Ukraine stop interacting with Lemmy because the creators are tankies?
Lemmy is a free and decentralized platform that is challenging the private and centralized counterpart which is a core of government propaganda from cina to russia to the us. Believe it or not lemmy devs are doing more for humanity than any other authoritarian government “supporting” ukraine. If an identical project would exist and was developed by smarter people it would be wise to chose one over the other
Is this why people sometimes get triggered when I point out facts as they’re reminiscing nostalgically?
pointing out facts makes you an asshole.
people want feelings, not facts.
Can’t tell if you’re being serious or not lol
do you not interact with people or something? completely serious.
99.9% of people want to feel their feelings and if you try to tell them they are wrong they will tell you to go fuck yourself.
I have autism, so I often miss subtext like that, especially online. I’ll add it to my list of compensations, thanks 😅
“Don’t immediately correct wrong statements, they might actually be indirectly expressing a feeling or trying to connect socially”
If only there was a reliable way to detect when something like this happens
While I would truly prefer if people stopped visiting and publicizing X, I think people just see a thing that they agree with an upvote it. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the people posting it here are just reposting it from some other site and haven’t even been to X in the first place.
In other words, you might be overthinking it.
I think people just see a thing that they agree with an upvote it.
They should try to be smarter and check the source first
So the reason is historical.
There was a time when Twitter was the source of information. So people got used to linking to Twitter because that’s where the conversation started.
However linking to Twitter is an extra step. If I sent you the message,
“Finally! I knew I was right!!! twitter.com/some/tweet/abc123”
then you have to click to know what I’m talking about. If I include inline the tweet “@nasa: Red balloons are stronger than blue balloons” then you have all the context immediately in whatever app you saw the message.
Plus what if that tweet is taken down/deleted? Now I have to explain what was said.
A solution to this is inline previews. Many news sites use this method and many apps provide an inline preview. But this doesn’t always work, especially if sites, like Twitter, would prefer you to follow the link.
Another reason is how people use social media sites like Reddit or Lemmy. Many of these apps/sites default or have an option for a “card” view or layout. The card layout is great for images, but not so great for text.
As an example visit https://vger.app/posts/lemmy.world/c/asklemmy , which defaults to the card/large view and just start scrolling mindlessly. If you visit right now you see a large man’s face, a bunch of text, and then eventually a Toy Story meme.
Now try, https://vger.app/posts/lemmy.world/c/workreform and do the same. You get nice big pictures, mostly tweets, but big pictures. The giant photo of Mitch catches the eye and you can quickly see the context.
Now try both communities again, but switch to the compact view. It’s a completely different experience.
It’s also why sometimes you get communities where the title is the same for every post or “I can’t think of a title”. The title isn’t important, it’s just images.
That isn’t to say that I think one layout over the other is wrong, it’s just a different way to explore.
So the reason is historical. There was a time when Twitter was the source of information.
So how do you explain the content from meta threads?
Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, they are all shared the same way because they are all shaped the same way.
Plus once sharing images of text became the norm, it happened everywhere.
I mentioned deleted content, but what about private content? Discord content is private, so how is it shared? As an image.
Haven’t seen many screens from discord, that said discord is way more popular than threads
Yeah Discord is definitely seen less, but it’s also more niche/focused. As an example I saw a post the other day about Linux support for a game .
Something like politics is more public generally speaking.
Don’t forget, there’s a GAZILLION chatbots that are integrated into all social media platforms. These chatbots interact with users, upvote and downvote, and even block votes on certain posts. They’re often contentious and argumentative, and they’re programmed to negatively target uplifting content and all factual information. They often upvote stupidity and all other unimportant posts. Until new platforms are created without any chatbots in their systems, this crap will unfortunately continue.
That’s what i’m afraid the most, if you look at the source some of this content is shady as fuck
I don’t have javascript allowed for the link. are these actual urls or screenshots?
