Re:Conspiracy theories bypass people’s rationality
by dragontamer on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:24PM
(#29015441)
Somewhat.
In the Twitter world, there's a concept called getting "Ratioed", which is when your comments exceed the number of retweets / likes.
The idea is (at least on Twitter), "better" posts are roughly the ones that have more eyeballs but fewer reactions. "Getting Ratioed" is a bad thing. You want your tweets to get many eyeballs but not a lot of back-and-forth discussion (as back-and-forth discussion is often a proxy for toxicity)
In contrast: Facebook is clearly of the opinion that "better" posts are the ones where people feel like making a comment on. Surprise surprise, Facebook is beginning to look like the more toxic social network.
Re:Conspiracy theories bypass people’s rationality
by Epenthesis on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @12:53PM
(#29015852)
While it's true that the article indicates FB views comments as positive signals, that's definitely not the primary focus of it, which is about likes vs "higher intentionality likes + other emotions".
Re:Conspiracy theories bypass people’s rationality
by dragontamer on Wednesday October 27, 2021 @03:15PM
(#29017742)
Why award anger at all?
And it doesn't even explicitly state it, instead saying first "A person was able to react with emojis that correlated to “angry,” “sad,” “haha,” “love” and “wow.”" and then "If a person reacted with an emoji instead of the “like” button, the Facebook algorithm would see the post as five times more valuable and push similar content.", requiring the user to draw an inference that all emojis were treated equally, despite the priming that it only refers to "angry" earlier in the article.
This feels, ironically, like an intentionally inflammatory framing.