I think you are not seeing the whole scope of the problem. Echo chambers are only one of the problems, lowest common denominator posts are another issue of self-moderation/voting.
That’s why there needs to be a difference between agree/disagree and relevant/spam. I’m planning to have both, and hopefully people use them to good effect.
I am not even necessarily talking about relevant/spam. Some content might just naturally lose out because e.g. an interesting mathematical proof has less mass appeal than a cute cat picture even though the former might be higher quality and effort.
Sure, not all content is relevant to all people. That’s why Lemmy organizes things into communities, and self moderation can also differ by community. A good resource on experimental math may not be as good of a resource on cute cat pics.
Define quality.
I’m trying to build such a thing as well, but it always comes down to this. Options:
I think the first is the best option, so I’m looking at algorithmic solutions based on user behavior, but it’s likely to end up in the same spot.
I think you are not seeing the whole scope of the problem. Echo chambers are only one of the problems, lowest common denominator posts are another issue of self-moderation/voting.
That’s why there needs to be a difference between agree/disagree and relevant/spam. I’m planning to have both, and hopefully people use them to good effect.
I am not even necessarily talking about relevant/spam. Some content might just naturally lose out because e.g. an interesting mathematical proof has less mass appeal than a cute cat picture even though the former might be higher quality and effort.
Sure, not all content is relevant to all people. That’s why Lemmy organizes things into communities, and self moderation can also differ by community. A good resource on experimental math may not be as good of a resource on cute cat pics.