Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
Just because the fediverse doesn't have sponsorships doesn't mean corporations aren't interested in poisoning the well. Anyone could be a bad actor. Heck, it could be anyone. I could be a corporate shill and you'd never know.
Wikipedia runs on donations. Does that mean that outside entities aren't interested in biased editing?
The nature of the network makes it much more difficult for corporations to subvert the network, and the incentive structures are also different. The question isn't one of interest, but one of structure. It's much harder for corporations to bias a distributed network that's not run for profit than platforms they own and manipulate themselves. And of course there are lots of instances of biased editing on wikipedia, but there's no comparison compared to corporate platforms.
I'm not convinced. You've made several claims, and maybe it's obvious to you as to why it's hard for corporations to infect the fediverse, but not to me. I'm probably too smooth brained to see it.
Here is Phil Jamesson using the behaviour of Reddit and the upvote system to get to the top of /r/videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69bFOYklP-E
What is stopping the marketing team of a corporation to influence the fediverse using similar and more advanced techniques? Lemmy uses an upvote system. Why can't it be abused like Reddit's system?
I've already seen several examples of small scale brigading. I can't mention examples because it would immediately make this post another target.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=69bFOYklP-E
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Once again, it's a question of incentives. People operating individual servers have no interest to allow corporate interference on the platform. The kind of small scale brigading you refer to is an organic phenomenon. I also don't know what you mean when you say you can't mention examples because this post will be a target. What will this post be a target of exactly, you'll get a few downvotes. Why are you worried about that exactly?
Often when brigading happens, it's not just the one comment that gets downvoted, you're whole post history gets downvoted. Heavily downvoted posts don't show up in feeds, and you end up struggling to interact with the community. Some communities will outright ban (or shadow ban) a heavily downvoted account. Its forced ostracism.
It may not be openly allowed, I understand that. The problem is when you have bad faith actors and shills. They pretend to be not associated with a corporation, but they subtly push an agenda.
You do realize votes don't actually have any value right? And I have yet to see any community on lemmy ban account based on downvotes, this is just something you've made up here. There's a reason why lemmy has a public mod long where you can see the reasons for bans. Show me a single instance of people being banned because their comments were downvoted.
Yes, people will try to push agendas, and this is nothing new or exclusive to social media. The real problem with commercial platforms is that a private entity controls the content on the platform deciding what people see using opaque algorithms, and introducing biases into content that benefit the company running the platform. That's why corporate social media is so problematic. Again, you can compare wikipedia as an example to see the huge difference between an open and transparent platform compared to closed private ones.
There is simply no actual evidence to support your position I'm afraid. Mastodon network is literally millions of users now, and anybody who uses it regularly can see a drastic difference with corporate platforms.