Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
users will complain about posting content on a platform that gets engagement primarily from "bots", yet will brag about how many mints their NFT got in a campaign minted primarily by "bots" so bots are good if giving $$, but bad if giving replies?? to quote @geoffgolberg, "the cognitive dissonance is strong here" :)
28 replies
9 recasts
74 reactions
š _š£š _š
@m-j-r
people are trying to play off a bandwagon effect (enough quantity to be misperceived by humans as quality). I agree with Dan as much as low-effort replies aren't fungible to 10x the likes, etc (which don't run as much of a risk of souring the experience). they obviously motivate marginal organic value, even if that's unacknowledged, even if 90% are generic & unreplied to. does farcaster have renewable credibility? are bots proportional/lagging to thoughtfulness? is the point to have a broad, inclusive label that chills engagement & knocks users out of standing? š¤·āāļø (still extending the benefit of the doubt)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
š _š£š _š
@m-j-r
also, there's stuff like this: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
