Follow
This is a really interesting read. You don't have to believe every word, you don't have to agree with the conclusions, but it comes from an informed source and gives reasons, so it's interesting at the very *least*.
@seedyh it's a balance, isn't it? Enough people with enough engagement to survive, but not so much that it's uncontrolled. I think it will be an interesting journey whatever happens.
@bykimbo that was interesting, and while I agree that many of the changes mentioned made sense on Twitter, I'm not sure they would make sense here.
1: Twitter was a business. They had financial incentives to not allow people to stop engaging with their site. Once the Twitter migration ends, if most of the new users don't stick here, I'm not sure that will matter as much for a bunch of folks running their own servers. Nobody is losing their job as CEO of the fediverse if they don't show enough growth in Q4. So I'm not sure there is the same.... desperation.... to keep users engaged here.
2: while I'm sure that what he said is true about those changes getting more users to be more engaged, those engagements were not healthy. So much of the interaction on Twitter was toxic. Those algorithms didn't highlight the best of Twitter that you might have missed, instead they pushed outrage. I never came away from Twitter feeling good about humanity, yet I kept going back and checking out what was happening there.
So, it kind of boils down to the fact that Twitter considered more users to be the prize, no matter what it took to get them. And I just don't think the same incentives are in place here.