Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I myself worked for a social media company for some time (although more in IT, not in their core business). The success metrics for this company were exclusively followers, likes and so on. There were no other metrics whatsoever.

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.

It’s not some anonymous force forcing you to act like many of your fellow citizens do on social media. It’s what the US believes, I’m affraid. Even on Lemmy. It’s all “I don’t like Trump” but strangely enough many still agree to some of his key positions when his name is not mentioned. It’s weird.

You might want to check out the Patriot act (especially section 215) and how that plays into your believe of your constitutional rights. If there are any questions, just ask Clarence Thomas - he knows his stuff. I really don’t get how you could be so blind to issues like that just because this post is about China. This is not a popularity contest - it is not US vs the world. This is about your rights, your data and your democracy. I’m from Europe and I’m kinda getting tired of reminding people from the US that your blind patriotism is just that…a blind spot that is used against the US citizens on every corner.

1984 is already a reality - in every country of the word, especially the US. Apple’s famous Superbowl commercial from the same year, which suggested that data privacy (…) was important with regard to their strongest competitor at the time (IBM), does nothing to change this. On the contrary - none of this was even halfway true even back then. I really don’t get why people think this is just an issue in China. It is an issue all over the world. For years and years.

That is certainly not wrong. However, I believe that it’s not just the Chinese but that the US government (and other states around the world) has very far-reaching access to its citizens’ data as well. Among other things, the Patriot Act makes it very easy to demand user data from companies without appropriate checks and balances, if the NSA is not already aware anyway. Without somewhat decent legal regulations such as those that exist in the EU for example, citizens have to trust that the state will not abuse this largely unregulated power. With regard to the question of who will form the next US government, I see a significant problem in this context: I think that Trump’s right wing GOP will use this power against their political opponents and also, as a precaution, against ordinary citizens. I don’t think they would shy away from setting up a surveillance state based on the Chinese model - the conditions for this are certainly met in the current legal situation.

I think the only way to solve this problem for good would be to tie social media accounts to proof of identity. However, apart from what would certainly be a difficult technical implementation, this would create a whole bunch of different problems. The benefits would probably not outweigh the costs.

Well, unfortunately, the internet and especially social media is still the main source of information for more and more people, if not the only one. For many, it is also the only place where public discourse takes place, even if you can hardly call it that. I guess we are probably screwed.

Yes, Dali would have been great as the emperor.

But Jodorowsky’s unfinished Dune project still had a significant influence on several major science fiction films and media, despite never being completed:

1. Alien (1979)

• Dan O’Bannon, who worked on Jodorowsky’s Dune, later wrote the Alien script
• H.R. Giger’s designs for Dune inspired his work on the Xenomorph
• The Alien Xenomorph’s design has roots in Giger’s Harkonnen Castle concept for Dune

2. Star Wars (1977)

• George Lucas was reportedly influenced by the Dune storyboards and designs
• Jabba the Hutt’s appearance may have been inspired by Baron Harkonnen’s design

3. Blade Runner (1982)

• Ridley Scott hired Dan O’Bannon and Moebius, who had worked on Jodorowsky’s Dune, to help create the futuristic world

4. Contact (1997)

• The opening space sequence was allegedly inspired by Jodorowsky’s planned opening for Dune

5. The Incal (1980s graphic novel series)

• Jodorowsky and artist Moebius recycled many concepts from their Dune work into this influential comic series

Check out the documentary “Jodorowsky’s Dune” (2013). It explores how the pre-production work and assembled team for this unrealized film went on to influence much of modern science fiction cinema. It’s worth a watch.

Alien because of HR Giger’s iconic art style, among other things. Also Frank Herbert’s Dune, the first planned film adaptation of which Giger also worked on (sometimes considered as the best movie that was never made). In addition to the cultural influence that the book series already had, Dune also more or less spawned the real-time strategy computer game genre (with Westwood Studios’ Dune II).

deleted by creator

Sure, 1$ for 5.000 high quality posts - but only if it is content that you would otherwise only find in scientific journals; no AI stuff, of course.

This is a terrible idea for a site that relies solely on user-generated content and even user-moderation. It’s not like Twitter hasn’t tried this before - didn’t work out so well, I’d say. But hey, this concept probably works for the upper management. I guess it doesn’t matter to them if all that’s left is scorched earth, as long as they can cash out.

Removed by mod

Ok, noted. Will try to do better. Just one more followup question: Why do you think my presumptions are unfounded? I mean besides that you seem to have faith in the good of all people and don’t seem to think that there is such a thing as computational propaganda.

Well, I guess we have to agree that we disagree then.

Is your argument that it’s okay to spread hate and slander without providing any evidence as long as people aren’t getting paid? Also, what makes you so sure that these are private accounts?

I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience. Nevertheless, I think that a certain basic skepticism is important in social media, because it is simply a fact that many interest groups on the internet are fighting for sovereignty of interpretation and use enormous resources to assert themselves - even with very questionable methods. This of course makes it difficult to build trust and have an open discourse. The advantage of Lemmy, however, is that at least the platform itself does not interfere too much, like Meta, X or TikTok do. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a much higher probability that you will be heard with your opinion, message or whatever, if you can provide good arguments for your point of view. Sure, there are some viewpoints that users reject despite good arguments, but from my Lemmy experience so far, that seems to me to be the exception rather than the rule.

It is certainly true that other interest groups also engage in propaganda (or PR, as it is called these days) in both traditional and social media. But that’s not what this thread is about.

Anyway, you can perhaps even see something positive in the fact that the usual PR and opinion manipulation methods are now apparently also being applied to Lemmy, because this shows that whoever is responsible for these campaigns obviously ascribes a certain importance to this platform and thus also to the Fediverse - and that is somewhat of a good thing, I guess.

Exactly. I mean accounts that are typically not very old and exclusively spread right-wing content and the corresponding ideas - apart from perhaps a few low effort comments or posts that are most likely intended to conceal this fact. What makes these accounts even more suspicious to me is that they generally do not put forward any factual arguments, are not impressed by them in any way and are not even interested in a discussion. If you confront them and they respond at all, they always lapse into whataboutism or fall back on the familiar “I’m just asking questions” - both are strategies that think tanks in particular use to deflect attention from the fact that their claims and accusations have no factual basis. I can only conclude from such behavior that it is not about exchanging ideas with others, but about promoting a clearly defined world view, creating discord and aggression, tying up resources or forming a nucleus for belief in irrational assertions. I don’t think private individuals without a political agenda would do that - at least not to this extent.