Last week, I followed a pattern I have followed for most days over the past three to four years. Early in the day, I turned on the computer, made sure the daily blog had published as I had scheduled it, then I proceeded to share that blog on a few social media platforms.
Usually, the process is pretty quick and I don't allow myself more than a cursory examination of what is on those social media feeds during the process. To be perfectly honest, these posts used to actually result in some readership for the blogs I wrote, but now I don't think they do. The social media software companies have changed their algorithms over time to try to prevent people like you and me from seeing posts that encourage you to leave the social media platform - unless it's a paid advertisement. You'll find those all over the place, of course.
Still, I go through this process most every day anyway. And last week, I went through the process as I usually did and everything seemed fine.
Until I received a notice later in the day that led me to this:
First, let me be clear about something. I do think social media platforms should have some moderation. The issue here is about the effectiveness of that moderation.
There are so many social media posts that it would be ridiculous, given the chaos that is the social media universe, to expect a horde of human mediators to be checking in on every post. That might work if social media were truly segmented off into interest groups (as some of it is) that had mediators and a bit of a social contract to go along with it that most participants would naturally adhere to. But, we don't have that. It's a mass of swirling confusion (just as the image of Bree on a swirly blanket seems to convey).
Facebook, for example, has been relying on algorithms modified by artificial intelligence (more algorithms) for some time. Apparently, I found some combination of key words that set them off and this post was removed. And clearly, the post and the link to the blog, did not break any community rules.
Of course, I protested the removal of the post and the implied and direct threats of further removal/censure that came with it. But, let me tell you, that process was unclear, generic - and generally unsatisfying. And, as of this moment, the post has not been returned to the feeds I placed them in. As far as I know, I'm still on some mysterious "black-list" kept by the Facebook software that encourages the algorithms to watch me more closely.
Irritating? Yes. Frustrating? Yes. Critical?
No.
One of my pet peeves is being accused of something I did not do. So, it is actually pretty difficult for me to let go. If I'm going to be punished, then make sure it is for something I did. It especially gets me going when I scroll through my own feed and find that at least a quarter of the posts probably deserved to be removed.
But, I got over it by reminding myself of how low the bar can be for what we think is acceptable work and accurate information. Well, no... that actually made me more upset. This does not appear to be working!
Here's a sample of what I mean. There is an online board game playing site that I have used periodically over the past couple of years. I took note that they include an area in player profiles that show the number of games and relative success the player has had with those games. I had noticed something odd with the numbers and I decided to grab some of the most outrageous examples to make the point.
I don't know whose profile this is or when I looked at it. But, I'd say we have some sort of problem either with math, or, well, something.
14 victories in 44 games and this person is said to have "won" over half of their games (half would be 22 folks, in case you didn't want to do the math yourself). But, they actually had more wins than they played when it came to Cacao. Um... good for them?
Social media tries to be "social" by encouraging interaction, of a sort. In most platforms you can show the poster (and everyone else) that you "like" something with hearts or stars or thumbs up or whatever.
I vacillate between thinking these are useless and mean nothing to feeling they might mean more than they should. I do know that I wish we just had thumbs up or "no reaction" instead of all of the choices given to us on some platforms now.
The image I show above was attached to a post that focused on a young person's illness and the journey they were taking. I did not see anything that might indicate there was any scam surrounding it and it was for a person only "once removed" from my acquaintance. In other words, a few people I know were direct acquaintances with the child and their family.
I understand the message a thumbs-up or a heart might give. It's a simple (and often empty) attempt to show support. I'm okay with that because a little bit of positive energy is always needed during trying times. As long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking it does much more than provide a small burst of "aw, look! People actually sent positive thoughts my way!" - then we're fine.
But, what's with the small batch of laughing faces?
I've seen it before. Some author shares a post that shows concern for an issue they feel strongly about and those who select the laughing face clearly disagree. It's meant to be a mockery rather than a friendly belly-laugh because something was truly funny or mirth-inducing.
Or maybe they just clicked on the wrong icon. After all, there are so many social media posts you need to respond to in a day!
And now, I will set this blog to publish on Monday morning. I'll get up and put out my obligatory social media posts letting everyone know the blog exists. And I'll sit back and wonder if anyone other than the algorithms will take notice.
I noticed
ReplyDelete