Google/Youtube, who take zero action on people posting both horrible videos AND comments on said videos routinely
I used to share an office with YouTube's content review team at a previous job and have chatted with a bunch of them, so I can give a little insight on this side. For what it's worth, YT does take action on CSAM and other abusive materials. The problem is that it's just a numbers game. Those types of reports are human-reviewed. And for obvious reasons, it's not exactly easy to keep a department like that staffed (turns out you really can't pay people enough to watch child abuse for 8 hours a day), so the content quickly outnumbers the reviewers. Different types of infractions will have different priority levels, and there's pretty much always a consistent backlog of content to review.
I don't have an answer for this, but I love to imagine that these types of threads are posted by novelists trying to clear up any plot holes in their upcoming stories.
Yeah, video hosting is notoriously expensive. It's why there's still not a real competitor to YouTube, because nobody else but Google could afford to run the platform at a net loss for the amount of time required to build a profitable user base.
If even a tiny percentage of TikTok's US user base decided to move to Loops, that may be enough traffic to not only completely disable Loops, but would probably impact the rest of the Fediverse at large, too.
If you have to break your message up into 13+ posts, maybe you should consider posting to a different platform. Mastodon - and microblogging in general, but specifically Mastodon - is terrible for this type of communication.
I'm referring to Bluesky's new reply sorting, which will put comments with more likes higher by default. Pretty much every platform that does this kind of sorting by default, does so because it drives up engagement. People are more likely to like/heart/favorite/whatever a comment if 100 other people have liked it than if just 1 liked it. And the more likely you are to like somebody's comment, the more likely you are to open their profile and see the content they post. It's a dark pattern designed to keep you scrolling.
Whenever a developer wants to encourage you to use their platform more and add your +1 to as many items as possible, it's because they're about to start serving you ads or trying to sell you something. The more times you refresh a page, the more ads you get served. You see this on Meta platforms, Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok... basically everything that sorts the "hottest" comments to the top.
A paid BSKY+ service is right around the corner, count on it.
Maybe, but not unrealistic. Bluesky has already begun their shift toward enshittification, changing their default sorting algorithm to one that favors the quantity of engagement over the quality. Usually when you see a platform making moves that are meant to drive user activity without adding anything substantially positive to the user experience, it's a sign that they're about to start monetizing the platform.
Nah, you're not missing anything, and that is already happening. There's a few users who keep creating new accounts on alternate instances to post troll threads. But it's on a small-enough scale that it's trivial for mods/admins to deal with. And realistically, it's more work for the troll than it is for the mods, so eventually the troll user will either tire themselves out or simply run out of instances to make new accounts from.
It's definitely an intrinsic problem that ActivityPub doesn't really have a reasonable solution for yet. It's sort of a necessary evil in order for the rest of the Fediverse to function freely, and part of the compromise that users and communities need to accept and live with in order to keep things running. But, I don't think it'll become a major issue unless the Fediverse sees a massive influx of users, like the sort of scale that Bluesky saw with Twitter's exodus.
Yep, I've been particularly irked with the way people keep calling Bluesky "decentralized". Simply having multiple servers doesn't make it decentralized, that's like saying YouTube is decentralized because they have dozens of CDN centers.
If every endpoint on the network is owned and controlled by a single entity that manages white/blacklists, then it is not decentralized. I'm not sure what you would call it, maybe "pluralized"? Not sure, but definitely not "decentralized". A decentralized network will have no such authority that controls who can and cannot join it.
Not sure about Lemmy, but the default option on Mbin is "Hot", which is just chronological order with boosted comments pushed to the top. Boosting is basically just the microblog way of retweeting, and I believe will add an extra point to the score on the Mbin side.
Could be a bit confusing, since Mbin's definition of "hot" is 95% chronological, but Bluesky's definition has more to do with reply/like ratios.
So, I did a bit of digging into this to find a reasonable explanation for this one. I've gone through dozens blog posts, research papers, and skimmed through two webinars on the topic. Turns out, this is actually a pretty contentious subject in the sociology field, and there's a lot of competing explanations for this phenomenon. I reached out to an old colleague of mine, Prof. I.M. Bawling, author of Why Am I Crying? Tears, Wails, and Bellyaching Explained, and he was absolutely stumped. After a heated debate that ultimately resulted in the destruction of our lifelong friendship and revoking my invitation to Christmas dinner, the conclusion we've come to is:
I used to share an office with YouTube's content review team at a previous job and have chatted with a bunch of them, so I can give a little insight on this side. For what it's worth, YT does take action on CSAM and other abusive materials. The problem is that it's just a numbers game. Those types of reports are human-reviewed. And for obvious reasons, it's not exactly easy to keep a department like that staffed (turns out you really can't pay people enough to watch child abuse for 8 hours a day), so the content quickly outnumbers the reviewers. Different types of infractions will have different priority levels, and there's pretty much always a consistent backlog of content to review.
While this article talks about Facebook, specifically, it's very similar to what I saw with YouTube's team, as well: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona