2012
Internet forums are disappearing because now everything is Reddit and Discord. And that's worrying. (www-xataka-com.translate.goog)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [A] to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
703 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What are we going to do about it?

Sorry for the Google Translate Link. An easy alternative is much appreciated.

Edit: thanks to @Xamrica@lemmy.dbzer0.com for this translation alternative: https://translate.kagi.com/translate/https://www.xataka.com/servicios/foros-internet-estan-desapareciendo-porque-ahora-todo-reddit-discord-eso-preocupante

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

This is interesting perspective.

If I'm interpreting what your saying correctly, this becomes an alternation of the "Traveling Salesman Problem" - where people are the nodes, sending information is the destination, and medium of communication is the weight. The goal being finding the shortest path for two-way communication (go to destination and return).

If this is the case, "tyranny of majority" is indeed a very difficult problem to solve. This phenomena causes the weights of the graph to become change based on the number of surrounding nodes. Higher when less nodes (i.e Lemmy) and lower when more nodes (i.e Reddit).

To go even further, companies are manipulating their weights (creating closed ecosystems, etc) to make is so two-way communication is only viable within their bubble (think an edge of infinite weight). And it would also mean that it truly is unreasonable to expect laymen to "memorize the graph" (know a forum for everything) - it indeed would be just easier to know a subsection (i.e Reddit, Facebook, etc)

I'm just spitballing here, but a lot to interpret if true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Interesting response!

    Yes, the node, edges, travelling salesman, those are my definitions as well.

    The only difference is that I've always thought about this is with an undirected graph. That models conventional friendships pretty well, but now that I'm thinking about it, it's probably not a good way to model modern "relationships". Either way, with two nodes it's no longer a travelling salesman, as it becomes a much easier problem to solve.

    I would argue that the tyranny of the majority unlikely to not be solved with the current form of social networks. I'm not sure if I have time to write out my argument, but it stems from the fact that the most popular people in the world have very uni-directional relationships with most people; everyone knows of Mr. Beast, very few know Mr. Beast.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Yeah the uni-directional relationships are also significant. It also happens to translate well; if Mr.Beast goes to randomcorp.com he is almost guaranteed to pull more people over than if SchmoeJoe went. Those people in turn would cause the website to be a more attractive option (less weight on the edge).

    That would mean that there even is nuance within tyranny, which is funny to think about.

    There's also the possibility of cycles! What a fun rabbit-hole. Definitely worth a thesis paper or large-scale open discussion.

    P.S. Also agreed that with a "limit" it is not TSP, and is much simpler. It evolves into TSP only when you think about a message originating from a source and making it to everyone - with the same effect for responses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent