I have never been an "online community first" person. The internet is how I stay in touch with people I met in real life. I'm not a "tweet comments at celebrities" guy. I was never funny enough to be the funniest person on Twitter.
So when Twitter was accidentally purchased
I would say scrutability in itself doesn’t automatically make an algorithm good. “Demote everything that doesn’t support Trump” is perfectly scrutable but leads to a skewed discussion.
In fact I would say any content boosting algorithm at all leads to skew and what you call sycophancy. That includes upvotes/downvotes that affect what posts users see first. So I would get rid of all that stuff and just show purely chronologically.
I haven’t noticed much difference between instances either, though I haven’t been on many. I moved from lemmy.world to lemmy.ml because .ml has a bit less censorship (e.g. .ml lets me subscribe to !covid@hexbear.net). They are otherwise about the same, as far as I can tell.
This is mostly getting into normative vs descriptive philosophy. If it’s scrutable that a site/instance is demoting everything non-aligned with a worldview; then on the Fediverse it’s users’ choice to leave (and part of ‘community values’).
To some degree, yes. New Reddit is particularly bad about this, it actively buries unpopular replies (but it goes further, and doesn’t just use upvotes) — Software like Lemmy is better, you can easily set Sort by New or sort by Top as the default. There’s also no ‘Karma’ system that propagates across the site.
Sycophancy is a human trait, so it’ll always emerge in social systems; but normatively, our systems should not cater to these negative traits (e.g. Twitter).
There are some Lemmy instances without downvoting, but none without upvoting. That affects what gets posted. Also it doesn’t matter much what an individual instance does, since a lively community has users from lots of instances contributing. That’s the point of federation, I thought.