In a well-curated social network, I would expect follower to follow ratios to be pretty close to 1-to-1. The fact that they’re not here on FC indicates a lot of people bringing legacy Twitter dynamics over here.
Can you elaborate on this? What does "well-curated" mean, and why would that lead to a 1:1 ratio?
This is assumes homogeneity in interests, which may not be true in FC at this point
think you're right here - the curation means essentially everyone should probably just follow everyone. but our legacy bird-brains keep us focused on ratiooos, signals, etc tinged with a bit of mistrust and a fear of being overwhelmed.
My opinion is that this is just the result of validation feedback loops and humanity operating on a social-status-as-a-currency basis. I honestly don’t think Dan and team could do a better job of curating when you consider these things.. it is an extremely long term project after all.
Not sure I agree. To take it to an extreme, I find what Musk has to say interesting enough to want to know when he says something, so I follow. I don’t expect he would feel the same about my perspectives even if they are about similar topics. I’m totally fine with that. That perspective should be applied universa
So part of the issue too is 1:1 vs 1:n social communication 1:1 is a tool to convey focused info while 1:n is in large part a performance. Many of the n have a much higher ratio of lurking vs performing which leads to asymmetry in follow status for a lot of reasons It’s not a perfect heuristic though.
Distinctions between follow graph, friend graph, and interest/conversation graph, each w/ their own strength and weaknesses are becoming clearer. Last one barely beginning. Clearly there is room for more innovation in social networks. https://twitter.com/naval/status/1594017314927566848
Big difference between curation of the network in general and each users curation of their own feeds. Someone can like my content without any obligation from me to like theirs. Your point has far more validity as farcaster trends towards having everyone on it, very few definitive statements can be made now.
I’m generally of good faith that @dwr curates the members within the fargates in a distinct and sustainable manner.. However, that is a lot of good faith to apply to thousands of individuals.. If you look at my followers:follow ratio, it’s as close as 1:1 as I can make it. Not everyone I admire returns the sentiment
A thought I’ve seen discussed here often. Multiple contributions, I believe. (1) hard to keep with up follow, unless your constantly looking (2) def bringing over Twitter dynamics (3) small community causes a chron TL to be taken over by 1 person (e.g. early days I posted a lot) & others I’m sure.
I can think of a few reasons that make this a hard equilibrium to shoot for. - Not everyone has the same capacity for social input (I have 3 close friends, my partner has a dozen) - Some people will attract more attention (politicians, celebrities, etc…) - Lurkers can be really great-but-quiet people
Tend to disagree. In the real world interest is not always mutual, the willingness/ability to consume information in your feed is heterogeneous, and there’s many 1-to-n examples like experts, celebrities, business. Hence why social networks like LinkedIn have connections + followers
Nope. Preferential attachment dynamics would destabilize that very fast. Social graphs are only stable as scale-free beyond a size. You’d have to “curate” with extreme coercion to force 1:1