teddit

honest personal take (disclaimer: i'm not an ML expert, i just study and use a lot of social apps):

i think its highly unimaginative and tired to tell new users on a social platform to "reply a lot" in order to get any engagement.

social platforms, for a long time, pinned discovery as a user problem. tiktok changed that. they didn't expect users to earn attention the hard way (hustling to self-promote and get follows).

instead tiktok took on discovery as a platform problem and decoupled distribution from follower count entirely: a content-first, graph-agnostic approach.

on tiktok, a user's responsibility is to make good content and the algo would do the rest based micro interactions and watch behavior. YouTube took a similar approach, but favored creators who mastered their (effort intensive) rules: SEO knowledge, thumbnails, content cadence, etc.

if we're hearing that discovery is a problem, the question should be: whose problem — the user's or the platform's?

take long-form text platform substack: the recommender engine places more of the burden on the platform than the user, and the platform bias is towards quality via a trust graph.

it recommends newsletters based on what you read, introduces editorial curation, and the "recommended by other writers" feature means that small / new writers can get regularly recommended to audiences that a specific writer's taste.

each platform makes a design choice about who should work to be seen. on substack, they believe that good writers should be lifted through network effects and curation.

does this scale easily? no, it scales slowly but is compounding.

so why is this so hard for short-form text-based platforms like twitter, threads, bluesky, or farcaster?

because short-form text is typically low-signal, high-noise. short posts on their own carry very little context or signal. it's easier to produce, but harder to evaluate. as a result, discovery for short-form text platform has relied heavily on follower graphs. 

twitter initially solved this with hashtags (then failed to do it at scale with lists, fleets, and circle). substack partially solved this with its writer graph (trust graph) and categories (topic / semantic clustering).

and i think farcaster's open data, mini apps, and interoperability (zkTLS) can be leveraged for creative solutions here that aren't possible on other platforms. that excites me.

Is this the user’s fault or the platform’s fault?

Excellent question by @ted. Should be asked in many situations, not just this one. Because sometimes it’s user error, sometimes it’s platform error, and sometimes it’s both.

building farcaster | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina | “lucky me, lucky mud” 🤠

Author of The Network State.
Work with me: jobs.ns.com

I think only the platform can fail at disappointing their users in discoverability. The one mistake is valuing followers over substance. In Subreddits, for example, you can provide value without requiring social proof in the form of followers. Ironically, the best accounts on X are often between 739 and 10.142 followers. Beyond that, most accounts maximize for engagement and value drops. There should be no incentive to maximize followers. Instead, there should be an incentive to maximize "value provided". Nostr has the feature for zapping microtransactions. Medium - I believed - tried to achieve this by allowing you to "heart" an article multiple times. The number one metric should be value provided measured through: "time spend reading" an article, the amount of collected $, the amount of bookmarks, etc. Following should become a much more exclusive feature that either costs $ or has other psychological barrier (i.e. you receive ALL posts as an email or notification) so you choose carefully who to follow.