My impression is sometimes people see a certain topic and want to talk about it and upvote. Regardless of it being high quality article or novel. Not saying that's right but it happens.
And sometimes low-quality content gets a better signal, because people want to pick it apart in the comments. Which looks engaging to the ranking rules.
For #3 you can go to their profile and block them if they're really worth it. I think you only get like 100 blocks and then you just have to suffer through the motivational inspiration-porn quotes :)
Is there a legal designation or meaning to currency-manipulator I'm unaware of, or is this basically like the Chinese designating Trump a "name-caller."
There's like one sentence of "because I said so" analysis in this article. The idea that Facebook is dying because MAU is growing faster than DAU is basically ... dumb. Both numbers are going up. Facebook users are growing. Feels like people just like upvoting anything anti-Facebook even if the content doesn't really make the case well or at all.
I don't think this would help our social fabric, which the article says Google is "tearing apart." Why do we need to break Google's monopoly on search again? Which they don't actually have.
Of course they are! There are user researchers, people looking for spam and abuse, people tagging data, among other things who are absolutely looking at your: private messages, search queries, profiles viewed, Alexa conversations, Tinder messages, bookmarks, call history, purchase history, geolocation history... and on and on. I guess there are a lot of news stories left to write on this topic.
I think what gets me is the juxtaposition of the brand name and this functionality. Superhuman sounds like it should be all about making the email sender more productive. And not about tracking time-stamped geotags of my actions as the receiver.
Would be interested in seeing some kind of legislation where content moderation jobs that deal with XYZ categories of content must be compensate at least some % downtime/recovery. So e.g. in an 8 hour day you can only spend 4 hours a day doing moderation, and 4 hours of 'paid mental preparation' for doing the moderation work.
My impression is sometimes people see a certain topic and want to talk about it and upvote. Regardless of it being high quality article or novel. Not saying that's right but it happens.
And sometimes low-quality content gets a better signal, because people want to pick it apart in the comments. Which looks engaging to the ranking rules.