Most social media is the wrong format for long-term discussion. Whatever you post, it will soon be replaced by something newer.
Consumers just want that quick dopamine hit every time they open the app.
There are still quite a few phpBB-style bulletin boards out there with threads that survive for years. I think that’s the social media you’re looking for.
That is what aggregators served to defeat. Like Digg, reddit, or Lemmy. That’s what votes and “top hot trending” filters are all for.
Not saying the resolve the issue, just saying this is well known and understood
The First Mover Advantage is not exclusive to social media. It’s inherent to life in scarcity. First to run to the feast gets the pick of the food. First to run from the tiger has the most targets between the tiger and their bum. First company to sell a thingle gets 100% of the market until a competitor arrives, including 100% name recognition, 100% network dominance, etc.
I don’t understand the point of your comment. It’s the First-Mover Advantage, not the “First Mover always wins in perpetuity”.
First-mover disadvantages win sometimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_handicap_of_a_head_start
Social media?
More like… The regular media. RIP journalismWhat do you mean by first come, first served exactly? Are you refering specifically to interactions between news outlets and users?
This, basically
That same problem still exists even when sorting by upvotes, because the earlier a comment is posted the more people will see and be able to vote on it, pushing it higher.
What kind of slob gets their opinions from the comments sections of a local news outlet?
Hell, do major publications even have comments sections anymore? I’m lucky to see the first paragraph of a story after the barrage of “Please Sign In!” pop-ups. Nevermind getting all the way down to the bottom of the article to see what some random assholes think about it.
I mean…
[Gestures broadly at the state of the world]
People see headlines and the comment section of the social media platform where that headline was posted.
Web 2.0 was such a nice idea on paper.
It was great when they’d tricked investors into giving users an ecosystem with no (obvious) ads.
I mean, the quality of content hardly matters if you’re late. If you waited just one day to respond to this post, no one would notice your comment.
It’s not like there’s only one thread about a specific subject. There’s always a new post to add your commentary to, often enough a post of the exact same link/meme/question. If you come late to the first one you see, spend some time refining your idea, wait five minutes, and comment on the next one.
This is Lemmy I regularly get replies to three month old comments.
Most people aren’t into thread necromancy. New post and comments get more replies than the old ones. They aren’t completely forgotten, but the difference in attention is massive.
Again it’s Lemmy.
It’s the difference between two upvotes and three.
Says the guy with 4 upvotes.
but I won’t get the insightful reply someone else makes next week unless they reply to me.
Why shouldn’t you get a well-considered answer? I’m sure you’ll take another look at the thread. It does happen, but then you’re usually one of the few people who read these well-considered answers.
I’m not saying that there aren’t well-researched answers on social media, I’m just getting at the fact that there’s time pressure if you want your answer to reach a certain audience.
