brosirmandude

"the bulk of NFTs". Are you implying a majority of NFTs do this? If so, I don't think that's correct. At least it very much doesn't jive with my experience or the creators I know.

Yes it's definitely happening, and that obviously sucks, but I don't think it's as large scale of an issue as most people seem to think it is.

I'd argue it's the opposite. Having many right clickers around does the opposite of their intention, it gives the NFTs free marketing and exposure. More right clickers > more eyeballs on the NFT > more people intrigued enough to learn more.

This is the point right here.

Every reaction to UBI discussions immediately assume UBI is trying to replace all income, which is very much not the idea.

It's a floor for society.

FB is publicly traded though, and it's pretty clear that controversial content keeps people engaged with the platform, and in turn engaging with ads.

FB has a fiduciary responsibility to make their platform show content that it's users with engage with the most, for the longest amount of time. If that happens to be controversial content, it's going to be difficult to convince them to change their algos to inherently downplay controversial content.

Not sure it's possible to make them change like that without government intervention. And even then, what change can one government impose vs a a massive global company like FB? (I actually don't know this, but would be interesting in learning from some examples if anyone has any)

Can't this be done using NLP, or even just pulling term frequency within content? I imagine FB (& whoever else has access to the data) has to be doing this on the backend somewhere for their own research.

We essentially need a Google (the framework which they use to algorithmically understand web content) for social networks with a front-end UI for topical mapping.

--

Also to add to your idea, I'd be very interested in a social network that can do that, but also requires real ID's and has some sort of public display of the topics that any user talks about and engages with often.

That way if I'm talking to someone I can gauge if they're really someone I want to be talking to about a particular topic. (can also be used to better map taste to reviews of products/services/companies/etc)

I think the key words here are "with some effort". Ultimately anything is potentially worth the price depending on the amount of effort a person is willing to dedicate to solving something vs having it "solved" for them.

Honestly, public & private FB groups. Groups dedicated around specific subjects (mostly related to my career) have been some of the most influential places for learning, networking, building relationships that I've been able to call on later.

FB groups are king because:

1. Everyone is already there. 2. It's tied to your real identity (for the most part).

Other areas to learn/network and ask dumb/advanced questions exist, but to "community" vibe in FB groups is unrivaled.

My FB feed is almost nothing but groups posts. I've hidden/unfriended most people I don't care about and no one I've kept really posts to their actual pages much these days anyway.

I really wish Groups was a separate app. I'd keep that and messenger.

I realize my privacy on fb, and likely around the whole web is the tradeoff for this but unfortunately that's what's required to stay on. The advancements I've made in my career and personal life directly & indirectly due to the FB groups I'm in are definitely worth it, and likely would not have happened without the existence of FB groups.

So what I'm hearing is, start a tree removal service.