Not sure if I understand the thread, but it seems to me it was trying to find out how many people actually reply to posts on Lemmy, rather than just reacting or seeing and ignoring them. And what it seems to find out, is that Lemmy is actually very active. According to it, the median community replies to 74% of all posts, which doesn’t look bad at all imo.
It also seems to compare the numbers to Farcaster, and concludes that Lemmy’s lack of rigged algorithms, focused on chronological feed, creates more active communities with higher visibility and replies. It also seems to conclude that the chosen server heavily impacts the response rate (Lemmy.world with 93% of active threads, compared to 56% on Lemmy.zip).
The biggest problem though, is that it compares Lemmy to Farcaster, which are completely different platforms. Farcaster is a microblog like X / Mastodon / Bluesky, that, by design, is a whole different beast, and also way too niche. Without comparing it directly to Reddit or other comparable social networks, I don’t think it actually means anything that useful (at least not in a comparison).
Also, the data is too short (1 day, 50 posts each community) to draw conclusions, which makes it fundamentally flawed. If the data was extended for an entire week or a month, and done in different times of the day (considering that time zone matters), the conclusions could have been much more interesting.
The person that did it probably just wanted to upscale the image, but regenerated the whole thing instead.
If they used an upscale model on something like Upscayl or Comfy, they’d certainly would have achieved much better results. But they probably don’t know it.