Oof. Engagement around conflict works at all age ranges though. Controversial statements by eSports casters drives posts on Reddit, NIMBY comments on NextDoor, etc.
I suspect the tone of this comment is to suggest the platform's algorithms did a better job mixing in rich content and focusing attention on more interesting, less conflict-laden viral media?
I've noticed that the best way to get people to engage in a problem is to state an opinion that is so obviously wrong. People go out of their way to tell you that it's wrong and what their opinion is. If you post something that's sort of wrong, partially right, or probably right, people won't lift a finger.
Try this with your next code review! :D Do something the wrong way and everyone wants to correct you. I've noticed after I've corrected such a problem, people are silent about the rest of the code review, or get lazy about finishing it.
<dm> I discovered that you'd never get an answer to a problem from Linux Gurus by asking. You have to troll in order for someone to help you with a Linux problem.
<dm> For example, I didn't know how to find files by contents and the man pages were way too confusing. What did I do? I knew from experience that if I just asked, I'd be told to read the man pages even though it was too hard for me.
<dm> Instead, I did what works. Trolling. By stating that Linux sucked because it was so hard to find a file compared to Windows, I got every self-described Linux Guru around the world coming to my aid. They gave me examples after examples of different ways to do it. All this in order to prove to everyone that Linux was better.
* ion has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<dm> brings a tear to my eye... :') so true..
<dm> So if you're starting out Linux, I advise you to use the same method as I did to get help. Start the sentence with "Linux [stinks] because it can't do XXX like Windows can". You will have PhDs running to tell you how to solve your problems.
<dm> this person must be a kindred spirit of mine
It certainly does, but content like that is described in the article, is clearly aimed a less internet-savvy crowd. Maybe the same crowd that didn't grow up with internet trolls and have copious free time and are at the highest risk for contracting plague, so they are especially juicy targets for online engagement vampires.
I'm confused. It seems the author's statement is also random bits of sensory information meant to make people fight with each other.
Now if you tell me that younger people are less likely to admit to using Facebook I'd buy that.
Another thing to consider is that simply looking at the age distribution is not enough. In my experience, older users (like 60+) are much more likely to engage with content. While older users may be a minority, they can make up a sizeable amount of content on the platform.
Can I just watch TV without seeing ads? Can I just get a new car without paying $30,000? Can I just get the chrome browser without telemetry that tracks everything I do?
Of course there's value in the product you describe. Value for you, no value for Facebook.
>Can I just get a new car without paying $30,000?
Choose another model/brand, better yet go 1-2 year old if new(ish) is important to you.
>Can I just get the chrome browser without telemetry that tracks everything I do?
Degoogled Chrome + uBlock Origin + Ghostery
>Value for you, no value for Facebook.
I haven't tried them in a long time since I do want to see posts by pages and groups I'm in (why else would I follow them), and don't see any of the stuff people typically complain about anyway.
No more "X friend liked Y photo or commented on Z post", no more recommended content, not even sponsored posts I think (quite the loophole, if you work at Facebook please move along). Just what your follows (friends and pages) posted, chronologically. Nothing from groups tho if that's your thing.
Easy to do with email. Why do you need Facebook at all if those are your objectives?
If I post a picture of my dog on Facebook and my child's teacher sees, that feels normal since they just kind of happen upon it. If I send them an email with a picture of my dog, that feels like I'm over stepping a bit.
To bootstrap your list and make the service more viral, the service could cross-post the newsletters (or just an excerpt) to Facebook (and other social media services) with a newsletter sign-up link telling people they could receive your full updates in email without having to log into Facebook.
But a third party app that forwarded fb updates to a mailing list ... That's something I'd pay for.
Advertisers are using this trick too. Healthcare ads with a gay couple, grocery ads with a Muslim, they aren't doing it because they're being inclusive, but because people click and interact with those types of ads.
Recently it's become pretty blatant. The people/signal could be removed and the ad is still a complete message. The character is adjacent to the content.
It's there as "interact-bait" to get people to furiously type at the keyboard and thus boost the advertiser's engagement score.
These people aren't expecting that kind of engagement with commercial posts, just the exposure of them.
I don't like and comment the posts from the manufacturers of the food I buy at the supermarket. That's an impressions game.
The culture wars ads get additional boosts to get those impressions.
It's a gambit that assumes most people either don't care or are happy if there's a trans person in the ad and the lift they get from the interacting malcontents in aggregate pays off.
Probably does. I keep seeing them. Or at least whatever 3rd party ad agency companies like Kroger's and Aetna uses knows how to juice those numbers up to keep the contracts
I wonder if I would see more if I followed celebrities that take strong issues with this stuff. It'd be a great thing to test
They're all just marketing tricks. The difference is they're not tricking you. Instead they're attempting to trick Facebook
Link to the November post: https://www.garbageday.email/p/when-the-traffic-firehose-is-...
All roads to monetization require engagement, so you just end up with groups that churn out "bait" like this.
You can have an ocean of free blogposts but if it's not engaging then it's not easy to monetize.
Not really. On the opposite. If there is no money to be made there is no ad harvesting bullshit to be made.
Does FB have any way for those who created the content to be compensated for it in any way?
It's similar to a lot of "cute cats/dogs" accounts on Instagram. They get tons of views without gaining much from it. But then they can sell "sponsored" posts and stories that reach tons of people, which they charge hundreds for (commonly also used for dropshipping ads).
Part of me thinks that these videos are being generated by AI and aren't real at all. A good chunk of them make absolutely no sense to me.
Also pretty fitting to have this article sponsored by an NFT "product" that claims to be a "troll on the perfume industry". What even?
Sadly, I don't think that's the case.
"Which is the best city??? (like) for London, (love) for Paris, (think) for Berlin"
This type of stuff gets millions of likes in no time either.
Who's going to buy an NFT that gives comes with a physical product on the secondary market? Unless that business will only sell to NFT holders in perpetuity, which sounds like a poor way to grow a business but hey, lots of things are successful by being exclusive.
> Unless that business will only sell to NFT holders in perpetuity
That's what BAYC does. Then you open a next tier NFT line to expand down-market.
I can absolutely believe that a lot of comments on these baits are bots trying to look real for like/engagement-farms - could even explain why they catch like wildfire - as they are the perfect target with one-worded comments copied from others looking normal. But seems to me that theory  is a stretch, although it sounds like a compelling dystopia.
>Dead-internet theory suggests that the internet has been almost entirely taken over by artificial intelligence.