Going from "certain features that cause virality are not implemented here" to "hence things cannot go viral here" not two weeks after #JohnMastodon went certifiably viral is… a take.
Going a step further and claiming this somehow means fedi could not have supported social movements is even more of a jump.
One way I could respond to that is: this whole network is a social movement, for Dog's sake! It started off as a social movement of people who wanted out of walled gardens.
But…
1/🧵
Going a step further and claiming this somehow means fedi could not have supported social movements is even more of a jump.
One way I could respond to that is: this whole network is a social movement, for Dog's sake! It started off as a social movement of people who wanted out of walled gardens.
But…
1/🧵
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
•I don't think such "virality-enhancing" features generate more attention in the system, so to speak.
On :birdsite: and other algorithmic social networks these virality-enhancing features only *shift* that attention towards certain things, at the cost of other things.
Wondering why you get more interactions around here with fewer followers? My uninformed hot-take is: that's why. Our "attention budget" is artificially redirected.
2/🧵
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
•The dynamics are different.
This does not mean things *cannot* go viral — they can, as #JohnMastodon shows if anyone needed any proof.
I strongly believe Fediverse *can* support social movements (it is one), and that interactions here might be more meaningful thanks to lack of certain "virality-enhancing" features.
3/🧵