There is no such thing in social media as quality, it's about engagement and networking
Good point, I agree. The big player role model platforms have never specified what a post should look like, so they have neither a Prussian understanding of work (effort, sweat and diligence) nor an artistic high-quality one (good design etc.) communicated. YouTube & Co never did, they didn't tell video content producers that their ten minutes were lousy because filmed with shaky camera or create the billionth cat video.
Every successful media platform that has grown up has in no way dictated or limited the "how" or "what" of content, but merely set the space. This only started when the channels became state-supporting media. Hive is, of course, parsecs away from that.
While you're free to publish whatever you want on YouTube and other platforms, their algorithms filter out low quality.
There are no rules what to publish here either. We don't have algorithms that decide what others get to see, it's all done by humans here. But I don't see that much of a difference as you're trying to imply.
I spoke of those channels in their beginner times.
And you think they didn't curate/have algorithms then? Do you think they filled the homepage and the feeds with completely random content? You don't get users by showing them loads of spam.
Of course. You have to start somewhere. In order to attract you create the lowest barriers. Like a wild west atmosphere. In the beginning, everything is welcomed. If you restrict it/complicate it too much people won't come.
I did not talk about spam. I talk about "junk" or "shit posts", random stuff. People like cats, tits, cutsies, you name it.
Well, you're wrong. YouTube started with manual curation by their team.
https://lsvp.com/for-social-software-user-culture-is-as-important-as-product-features/
[...]
No, I am not "wrong". I just described what is to be seen everywhere. Cheap contents. The "either it goes right or it goes wrong" perspective is just that: either, or. While it's both. As cheap content is produced way faster than excellent one (because it takes more time, knowledge and effort), a just starting platform is being tried out with what works. Since both methods work, both methods are being tried. If you formulate what ought to be "excellent" (better, more valuable, more virtuous) then you get inflamed minds.
Tell me you didn't read the article, without telling me you didn't read the article.
Every new platform starts out with an idea what type of content they want. People have been, and are, complaining about the algorithms all the time.
The big difference here is that we're decentralized and transparent, and everybody feels like they have a say. Of course they do, just not as much as they would like.
And yes, you see cheap content everywhere. Here too. It's just harder to monetize. Everywhere.
There was no officially seen moderation and curation from the founders of yt, fb whatsoever. It started years after the beginner times.
The user culture was creating itself organically.
It was intransparent, yes. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.
!PGM
BUY AND STAKE THE PGM TO SEND A LOT OF TOKENS!
The tokens that the command sends are: 0.1 PGM-0.1 LVL-0.1 THGAMING-0.05 DEC-15 SBT-1 STARBITS-[0.00000001 BTC (SWAP.BTC) only if you have 2500 PGM in stake or more ]
5000 PGM IN STAKE = 2x rewards!
Discord
Support the curation account @ pgm-curator with a delegation 10 HP - 50 HP - 100 HP - 500 HP - 1000 HP
Get potential votes from @ pgm-curator by paying in PGM, here is a guide
I'm a bot, if you want a hand ask @ zottone444