Could be a good feature to add to PieFed, which is built on Python specifically to allow more developers to have access to building extensions and plugins.
This is a great case for a “reader added context” feature for Lemmy, if it could be implemented in a decent way.
msprout@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Programming language isn’t a problem as much as the mechanics of the implementation.
I mean, how does it work on Twitter? Do they have oldschool language models parse upvoted comments and automatically generate it? Basically the options are:
-
Involve some kind of ML model for partial automation, which is not going to go over well with Lemmy users.
-
Leave the UAC completely to mods, which is going to both overburden them and make power-tripping issues far worse
msprout@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
On old Twitter, community notes was simply a function of raising a flag for tweets that got ratio’d. This would open those tweets up for Community Notes users to submit a fact check. Then, the fact check with the highest upvotes gets displayed as the default one.
Now? Not sure. Elon is a sneaky fucker. But I do think it could be implemented as a simple comment queue that admins and moderators could set user roles to help with.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Getting ratioed isn’t an reliable indicator though (see this post).
I guess there could be a “misleading” button that triggers a Community Notes section, but complicating the UI like that could push away many participants… maybe a button to “mark” a comment as a correction during the post, and if it gets enough upvotes it becomes visible under the title!
-
SorteKanin@feddit.dk 3 weeks ago
It is implemented. It’s known as “comments”. You are looking at it. There’s no need for any particular UI feature for this stuff.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Reader added context is nice because it averts drive by upvoting of titles that are misleading (and vice versa), as most voters do not dig through the comments.
Hence this very phenomenon of highly upvoted posts that probably wouldn’t be so with the missing context.
SorteKanin@feddit.dk 3 weeks ago
Tbf a substantial amount of voters did see the comment - at the time of writing, 297 upvotes on the comment vs 483 upvotes on the post, or ~61%. So actually most people do dig through the comments, if the upvote count is something to go by at least.
Anyone who doesn’t read comments are unlikely to read reader added context, so you’re probably not getting a large amount of the remaining 39% of people to get the context just because you add some extra UI feature.
Besides, explaining the context is a much longer affair than a title and just wouldn’t fit. It’s not like I would even say that the title of this post is misleading in the first place, it’s actually pretty to-the-point.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
That doesn’t count views/impressions that didn’t vote, nor the initial voters that drove the comment to the visibility of the front page. It reminds me way too much of social media that goes viral before it has any chance to be refuted, and it’s already left its impact.
This is a “mistake” made by countless platforms (but also a feature of pure engagement is the goal). These kinds of attention flows are extremely important to Lemmy’s future health, lest it take the same trajectory as others.