@natematias @sarahgilbert what are your thoughts on a human-only internet requiring in-person sign up for a master key that can be used to create both anonymous and identity -tied accounts on algorithm -free social media?

Dr Sarah Gilbert, Research Director at Citizens and Technology Labs. An expert on this topic. (Not the actress and producer of the same name, because I am a dummkopf and was confused. Sorry. I'm learning.)

@natematias @sarahgilbert @techpolicypress

@natematias @sarahgilbert

Imho the important point is that not AI will drive human content out. Humans will do. Deliberately. If humans don’t want that – with majority – they have to set and to enforce the rules for that. Aka vote for a politic which does it. Act accordingly. As long as they are as civil society in the loop.

@natematias @sarahgilbert @techpolicypress

It's minor, but I noticed an immediate shadow ban on Reddit when I made my feed private. I could still post to big forums (like r/cats) but I'd get no engagement like I would before. By for good reason: it was harder to check that I was human.

But there are forums that have been absolutely ruined in their attempts to silence bots, like r/sewing. Which for a while was used by bots to gain Reddit "experience" simply by posting a shirt and claiming they made it. So again, good reason.

I can't really post to r/sewing any longer because I don't use commercial patterns. I'd have to spend far to much time with the mods proving I made my work to get my work seen, then I'm not sure they lift the shadow ban. It isn't worth it.

But seeing identical comments feeds on a news article posted on different subs hours apart is what turned me off Reddit. There are humans, but are drowned by the bots.

@natematias @sarahgilbert @techpolicypress may be it doesn’t make sense to post on LinkedIn anymore at all. If amount of output is what counts there human content doesn’t have a chance anyway.

@natematias @sarahgilbert @techpolicypress

A single week's impression gap doesn't really isolate algorithm intent from a dozen other explanatory variables, link posts to external sites, article length, topic, engagement velocity in the first hour, any of those could explain most of that 10,200 versus 65 split without needing a deliberate suppression story. The underlying point about moderation quality is worth engaging with on its own merits though, comparing LinkedIn's incentive structure to Reddit and Wikipedia's volunteer moderation model is a genuinely useful frame regardless of whether this particular post's reach gap proves anything about the algorithm specifically.

@natematias @sarahgilbert @techpolicypress
Well really, what did you expect? Algorithms already 'filter' and 'supress' certain content. AI just makes it easier, and less traceable. Do you think Google or LinkedIn care what we want? It's all about money and power. AI is giving it to them.

In the article, @sarahgilbert points out how bots are poisoning the well at LinkedIn compared to elsewhere.

"Why are Reddit and Wikipedia so much more human than LinkedIn? One reason is that they rely on the work of volunteer caretakers, known as moderators, who curate content & protect community members."