LanceCharleson

(Not my real name JSYK)

  • He/Him

erica
@erica

the "remove the headline from links" thing that twitter is doing is coinciding with another wave of panic from artists about "links being nerfed" and engagement on things artists are promoting/selling being worse and i'm once again just like... idk feeling really morose about how susceptible people are to believing tall tales instead of the actually obvious "no people are just not using twitter that much because it's a hostile site" and social media at large has conditioned us to ignore promotional posts because users only want content.

seeing someone post the general thought of "links do so much worse here now" when i posted a promotional thing on tumblr and saw it do about as """good""" as it did on twitter like... it's not that Twitter is nerfing your engagement on promo posts, it's that people just don't respond to that shit on major social media sites. they've all done a bunch of changes over time, some subtle and some incredibly not, to shove Content™ down your throats and whether you like it or not it has absolutely gotten you to just scroll past shit when someone is trying to Sell a Thing.

it's not that different here to be clear! a post where you are trying to sell shit will very very likely do worse than a normal art post. but that's also normal! the people who want to click and buy shit will always be a fraction of a fraction of the people who just want to see art for free. has it gotten worse over time globally on the internet? of course. but the 'why' isn't like a switch got turned off, it's just a really slowburning consequence of every social media platform training users to not pay attention to that shit because you making money doesn't make them money.


erica
@erica

i guess i'm eternally frustrated by this stuff because you can understand it and relatively simply explain it to people and they will still buy into the untrue shit because, like actual conspiracy theories, it conveniently answers all your anxiety-driven worries. and that's how you end up with everyone going to a place like bluesky and despite it being an insular platform with no external growth capabilities, people think it's The Solution because the numbers are not Twitter's numbers and therefor are good regardless of how contextually low they are.


doodlemancy
@doodlemancy

i've seen a looooooot of this on twitter specifically over the years but mostly ignored the supposed rules out of laziness. i see where it comes from though and i don't blame people too much. like yeah, sites do fuck around, for a while tumblr did that thing where any post with an external link in it wouldn't appear in tag searches and that was terrible. actual censorship and suppression (mostly motivated by profit or because a website does not want to moderate a certain thing) does happen, but a lot of times, i would say most of the time, the problem is just... you haven't found your audience, or the one you had is dwindling because they've moved on to other places. (i have like 5000 tumblr followers and i certainly do not get 5000 notes on every post LMAO)

i think a thing a lot of people really need to accept/embrace is exactly that fraction-of-a-fraction thing you mentioned. consider your own behavior online. think of all the posts you see on the internet every day. think of how many things you scroll right by because they don't really catch your interest. how many artists can you name whose merch/prints/books you sincerely go out of your way to always buy? very few, if any, i'm guessing. how much of your feeds is fan art for stuff you don't really engage with? probably a LOT if you've been online a while. everyone has a different mix of interests and everything you post online has a limited blast radius of interest, and whether or not it gets seen and passed around just comes down to chance. so many pieces i've posted have gone nowhere until i reposted them later and pure luck of the draw carried them into the thousands of reblogs/reposts/retweets. having keywords like shop, patreon, etc. never seemed to matter. if you search those keywords everyone censors, any day of the week, you'll still find top posts that include them, along with links.

i think it's hard for people to accept that hard work does not equal success, because we get taught that from birth and like... nope unfortunately. it's not fair, but you'll probably feel a little better about things if you don't assume the worst every time you post some art and it "flops". can't tell you how many times i have reposted things that got 0 attention the first time that suddenly got a ton of love. the situation can change. my Bocchi The Rock!! fan art may not have caught the eye of certain followers when Bocchi was newer, but maybe in the past year more of them have gotten into it, and if i repost it again, someone who overlooked it before will go EYYY IT'S BOCCHI and it will be someone with a lot of followers and suddenly that piece does better than last time.

"it's just the luck of the draw" also sounds shitty to say at first but like... luck of the draw means you have a chance. and those lottery tickets are FREE. repost/retweet/reblog your old stuff and work on getting over the Fear Of Being Annoying (you probably aren't being annoying).


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @erica's post:

fascinated by how algorithmic timelines seem to instill a great deal of superstition in their users. at its extreme you get the right wingers that are constantly yelling at elon to root out the woke cabal at twitter that is the sole reason their posts aren't doing numbers

idk feeling really morose about how susceptible people are to believing tall tales instead of the actually obvious "no people are just not using twitter that much because it's a hostile site"

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but it remains incredible to me how some Twitter users refuse to recognize this part of the equation.

in reply to @erica's post:

My honest feeling is that like... on the one hand, yeah, urban legends really do run rampant on social media

But on the other hand, man, did twitter ever encourage this kind of line of thought through its entire existence, not just with the lack of clarity behind its algorithm but also with behaviour like silently A/B testing users, a total lack of user-facing announcements when things changed, etc. It's maybe the most hostile communication style you could HAVE when running a site and IMO it really encouraged conspiracy theories for that reason. Like, when something REALLY strange happened, like one of my friends' posts becoming unviewable, was that a bug? was that intentional? No one would ever know, because twit doesn't communicate. IMO it's hard not to fall into the conspiracy zone when you see stuff like that happen.

But also, yeah, anyone complaining that twit engagement is down... there are WAY more obvious reasons than just the algorithm....

There's this concept known as McNamara's fallacy that I think about a lot these days when it comes to obsession over metrics and such.

Essentially, the idea is that there is a tendency for people to give weight to what can be measured over what cannot be measured, simply because it is measurable. An example being the strategy the US had during the Vietnam war: success was measured by how many people were killed on both sides and if we had less deaths we were "winning". The obvious flaw there being that all the other more complex factors (morale, justification, resources, determination, etc) were not quantifiable so they were ignored.

I feel like people make a similar sort of reasoning when they obsess over metrics on these sort of platforms. The idea being that if I can just get my numbers up, if the metrics go larger, than that means I will be more successful, and like a game to get those numbers up I have to Grind. It's not entirely wrong, surely having more reach/impressions/etc helps you be more successful, but there are so many intangible factors that these metrics can't grasp. If you talk to anyone who has had a ton of success almost all of them will mention a myriad number of unlikely things that lead to their success that are not measurable.

That and, as I've become convinced from working in metric obsessed tech world and data analyst world, I believe that most of these metrics aren't actually helpful to people because people in general are just bad at interpreting or understanding metrics. Our brains aren't built for statistics, its something that takes practice and training to understand well, and it's easy to see whatever picture you want to see in the numbers if you stare hard enough. So people spin themselves up or down over obsession with ghosts they see in the numbers, when it may be more fruitful to focus on the more tangible aspects.

I am not an artist though so idk.

I'm also pretty convinced metrics and statistics aren't helpful in general; you can see similar problems when people try to interpret opinion polling and gloss over all the blatant contradictions to assemble the statistics that are most favorable to them. With social media it's especially bad because everyone knows that algorithmic feeds exist, but they're convinced they can reverse-engineer them by staring at their output. And you can't! It's designed to trick you!

It's good to not care about algorithms but I don't think that means there's absolutely no curation being done. We know you can be shadowbanned, i.e. not show up in search results, for arbitrary reasons. We now have proof that Google silently repalces your search results in order to force ads on you, but it's always been kinda noticeable. Twitter could be making your posts less likely to appear on someone's feed if it contains too many hashtags.

The point is that trying to tailor your posts to this invisible force is not going to get you more clicks, let alone sales/donations, to justify the mental stress. I think that should be the messaging.

While I can't claim to know what's true and what isn't about the algorithm™, I stopped uploading to Twitter because of the content scraper it has as of September 29th (allegedly or not, I'm taking no chances). I did notice that after making this decision, I went from barely having any bites for commissions by total strangers or friends to zero.
My question is, with Twitter being in the sad state it's in under its current management, how and where do I market myself as a small-fry internet artist? Especially considering, I'm strictly using Twitter to interact with people until some drastic policy rollbacks take place.

Similarly I cannot count how many damn times someone has told me their phone is listening to them and showing them ads based on what they say around it (without having activated a voice assistant) and I simply cannot convince them otherwise. They're 100% sure, regardless of ANY information I give them.

Like I can mention battery life, I can mention permission popups, I can mention status lights, I can mention the fact that at any given moment on the planet there are hundreds of thousands of hackers tearing apart phones looking for the manufacturer's deepest darkest secrets, and if one of those hackers proved that you WERE getting ads based on unauthorized mic input they would be an instant hero to techies everywhere and start a multi-million dollar consulting firm based off that rep, they always just come back with "well what if facebook found a way around that."

Yeah and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bicycle!

We're just so conditioned to a very specific type of shitty thing that those paranoid folks are also not even considering the harrowing implications such a breach of privacy would provide.

It's not like being able to record through your microphone with all those factors bypassed would create the biggest fucking honeypot of info. It's not like governments and conmen and an abusive person you got angry who has access to the technical know-how could ruin your life in innumerable ways with this means of obtaining information.

No. It's just about the fear of those ads looking a little too similar to something you were just talking about. Because we're so used to apps abusing the little amount of leeway on info they can gather from us.

People don’t want to admit that advertisers don’t need your microphone to target you with weirdly specific ads, you just give ‘em a bunch to work with. On the other hand; it’s very funny how ads can be so fucking dumb sometimes.