• pwnicholson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Your explanation says that a post with 100k actually has 20k. What this guy is saying is that it does actually have 100k.

    • laverabe@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s impossible really to say. This was their official code citation:

      Over the past few months, we have carefully recomputed historical votes on posts and comments to remove outdated, unnecessary rules.

      I mean on the face of it, maybe they were telling the truth?

      But they are a for profit corporation, and that year forward was when the enshittification really began. I guess I just have little reason to believe that they didn’t just alter the algorithm to make it look like there was more engagement than there was.