I downvoted maybe 3 posts for being “unwise”, but I guess that’s not allowed. Looked up the mod and they banned a wave of people, all for “…”. Good stuff.
This “banned for using the functions of the website” shit is really getting out of hand. Unless it’s unequivocal support for every post, you’re out. It’s ridiculous out here.
Also! We still can’t block communities we’ve been banned from? Wtf?
Downvoting aside, not actually giving a reason for a ban is really stupid and comes across as being done in bad faith, imo. That alone makes this feel unjust to me.
Regarding downvotes, can someone explain to me why it’s bad or wrong? I’ve posted my drawings before and they were downvoted. While that stung a little, isn’t this just the nature of the internet?
There are bot accounts who will down vote everything either specific user or community.
That’s how it started but like everything else we got zealots doing a witch hunt because modding is just pre text for censorship
Fedi doesn’t get enough bad behaviour so they are harassing random people
Regarding downvotes, can someone explain to me why it’s bad or wrong? I’ve posted my drawings before and they were downvoted.
Now imagine you had your own community centered around your art. And instead of someone just not liking your work, there’s this one person who goes out of their way to downvote everything you post, no matter what it is. He doesn’t block your community. He actually waits around just to downvote your stuff.
Now let’s say you have another community. Not art-related at all. It’s about pears. That’s right, just pears. Poems about pears, pictures of pears, pear facts. Suddenly, every single post gets downvoted.
And guess what? It’s the same guy.
Sounds weird, right? Like what kind of person follows you around the platform just to downvote everything?
Let’s take it a step further. You look up the guy’s profile and realize he’s never posted anything. No comments. Nothing. Out of curiosity, you check his voting history and it turns out all he does on Lemmy is downvote every new post he sees.
Creepy, right? But also way more common than you’d think. That’s why you keep seeing this topic pop up.
Everything I described has happened to me. Sometimes all of it, sometimes just parts. But I’ve definitely run into people on Lemmy who downvote just because they think it’s funny. For me, some people just downvote my shit because of my name and the fact they don’t like me. And they have been very open about it.
One guy even said about me, “I can’t help it. I see Universal Monk’s name. I downvote.”
Lemmy seems to attract folks who are a little more extreme in their obsessive behavior than other platforms. Sure, a few users have been wrongly banned here and there for downvoting. But the number of serial downvoters here is ridiculous, especially the extreme political types or the hardcore anti-AI crowd.
I had someone downvote some stories I posted the other day. In a pattern that seemed to imply he didn’t actually read them. But he let me know that it’s because he didn’t like the cover art or the story subject (Trump, hamsters, vampire nuns with strap-ons, and nutraloaf).
That kind of downvoting is fine and what the button is for. But it’s not like he went in and downvoted everything.
And since he didn’t like my writing style, he blocked the community so he doesn’t have to see my posts there (I post a lot). That’s how Lemmy should work.
And of course I didn’t ban him; he didn’t do anything wrong.
You are in too deep.
Nah, the people who live to follow people around and downvote are in too deep. Easy to ban them now, so easy peasy to deal with them. That’s what makes them so mad! lol
I’ve been banned from a community that I wasn’t part of just because, while browsing /all, a post with some stupid take came up and I downvoted it. I rarely downvote and I only do when it’s really an awful take or harmful content but apparently, the mod didn’t like that.
The smell of freedom can be felt from miles when a sub includes a rule of “no downvoting”
Only toxic positivity in the building!
But onky the kind that the komisar approves
A long time ago I downvoted a bunch of posts from a person spamming and got banned from a half dozen unrelated communities for being a “mass downvoter”
Technically true, I’ve probably downvoted more posts than upvoted. But to ban someone for using fediverse features as designed? I dunno
I’m not a serial downvoter. I maybe downvote around 10% of what I upvote, and that’s considering that I regularly browse /all and find spam that I downvote and report, so I wouldn’t call myself a “mass downvoter”. It was also the first (and only) time I downvoted in that community. Some mods really don’t like disent. But it’s fine, I only found out because I went to the modlog to check something else and found out that I was banned. I suppose if I didn’t even notice that I was banned, it means I’ll be able to survive the experience.
Oh I’m with you, I was just adding an anecdote to back up your point. Those mods should just migrate their communities to an instance without downvoted if they’re so sensitive about them
Those mods should just migrate their communities to an instance without downvoted if they’re so sensitive about them
But if the downvoter isn’t on the same instance, then the downvotes still count and everyone else can see them.
Let’s say I’m on an instance that doesn’t allow downvoting. I have a community dedicated to pretty hairless cats. If you’re on a different instance, one that allows downvotes, you can still downvote all my posts.
I’ll never see your downvotes, but everyone else who isn’t on my same non-downvoting instance will, and that might hurt interaction in the community because people may see all the downvotes and decide not to visit.
Plus, the reality is that I’m an egotistical prick who sometimes likes to see exactly how much and how many people hate me. Hint: It’s a lot :)
This is my rational as well for putting my communities on standard instances.
PTB. If that’s their position, they should be using an instance that disables downvotes.
It’s worse than that. The community is one where voting, either up or down, is the primary intended form of interaction. Well, at least that’s what they say.
Edit: Ah, actually, maybe I misunderstood that. I read the message that each post has and took it as voting voting, but it could mean text voting.
Or they can just ban blanket downvoting dicks.
3 is not a blanket
Firstly it may be, depends how many there are. Secondly, the OP says “maybe three”, which makes me think there was more.
Also! We still can’t block communities we’ve been banned from? Wtf?
The more I use this software the more problems I see, not surprising given the developers. Hopefully Piefed can keep up with quality control over time.
You can block communities you’re banned from, just not from the sidebar.
But if you go to your settings -> blocks you can add it.
Thanks for pointing this out!
Its the first time Im hearing about this problem. If no one reports it on the issue tracker we cant fix it.
Edit: You can block a community that banned you under /settings, but not directly on the community page. Issue link
Didn’t piefed came with built-in echo chamber features, hiding downvoted comments by default and marking people who get downvotes with special marks?
I think in that scenario bans because downvoting patterns would be far more aggressive
Yes, and maybe, plus no.
When individual users have more tools to work with, the mods don’t have to be as authoritarian. e.g. if a bunch of people complain to a mod of a European community that there are too many posts mentioning Donald Trump and Elon Musk, then with PieFed the individual users can use the keyword filtering tools to tailor their personal view of the shared community content to accomplish that end (best of all there, the options include not only All and None but to filter Some of the content).
Another example is that by labeling highly contentious users, e.g. those who receive >10x more downvotes than upvotes, the users themselves can make the choice as to whether to engage or simply keep scrolling, i.e. providing additional options beyond simply block vs. allow. People that would otherwise be blocked will likely have their content be more exposed rather than less using this tool - or at least that’s one possiblity, which Lemmy did not allow or provide for (offering only Block vs. not, with nothing whatsoever in-between).
Still another example are people who post 10x more often than comment - a potential unregistered bot account, where I guess commenting on their posts could be a waste of time if many people block that account and thus a reply on those posts is unlikely to ever be seen by an actual human?
And still another example is new accounts, less than a couple weeks old, so that your reply may be different to them than an established user.
Yes PieFed can also automatically collapse or hide content based on downvotes received. I have these features turned off but if someone wants them on, then such a person might be better off to use them, rather than feel tempted to downvote or comment on such controversial content? (Edit: imagine a world where instead of comments like “this take is disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself for not thinking precisely as I personally do myself!”, those who don’t want to see such things do not have to, while those that do can have a genuine back-and-forth discussion without such noise. Good fences make good neighbors? This seems the polar opposite of an echo chamber where everyone simply MUST view the same content in one of the same identical manner of options provided, because those are the only options that the developers have deigned to allow for.)
A CRUCIAL difference here is that all of these features above are implemented at the level of individual users, making their own personal choices about what they want to see or not see. Lemmy mainly provides features to instance admins and community mods, but by shifting the choices downwards to the user level, it’s a whole new era in content management, having democratized the process, or at least allowing more for that, rather than leaving all the capabilities - along with all the responsibilities - in the hands of the authority figures higher up in the hierarchy?
I will leave it as an exercise to prove whether putting power into the hands of the people rather than concentrating it into the hands of a few is “good” or not (my personal opinion is that it’s great!), but objectively PieFed seems to offer far more “freedom” to end-users than Lemmy, as I understand it. (Edit: I guess I am saying that if Lemmy is akin to Windows where Big Daddy is always right, not only but especially when he is wrong:-P, because that is simply the only option made available to people - to either stay or go, fully block or fully allow, nothing in-between is provided for - then PieFed is Linux leaving it up to the user to decide individually what is right for them, by tailoring their customization options to suit their desires. Yes that theoretically could lead to an echo chamber where everyone must use a wide variety of flavors of Linux, in which case yes some could make the “wrong” choice - although I would argue there, why is it wrong if that is what they desire? - but don’t forget that the alternative is somehow even more of an echo chamber where everyone must use Windows, so I for one don’t see the addition of these new features as a bad thing? I suppose time will tell.)
It’s not about who have the power. There are still mods on piefed with all the same power as lemmy mods.
But with the downvoting penalty people get an opportunity to banish people they do not agree with to the shadow realm in a way that’s not possible in Lemmy. It’s not the power of the people it’s the power of a furious mob against anyone out of the mob.
You say “hideous user” I say any user who disagrees on the slightest with the mob ideas. And as the echo chamber closes smaller and smaller divergences will get punished until people will literally just be an echo of the allowed discourse.
I do think those piefed feature are a great mistake. People still have all the power via blocking users or instances here. But the “extra power” to the people is not really that, is just a net of authoritarianism in disguise. Heavy punishments to anyone disagreeing with authority, it doesn’t matter that much if authority comes from a King, an aristocracy or a Soviet (assembly of people) it’s still authoritarianism. And that’s what I think will happen with any piefed instance that enables these features.
We all know that no only “hideous users” get downvoted, and that “hideous users” not always get downvoted. We all know that even the platform says to not use the downvote as a “I disagree button” people use it for this.
I’m more on the opposite side of the spectrum on this matter. And more and more I think it’s better to completely get rid of the downvote button. If you really don’t like something block it for you, there’s no need for people to have tools that greatly affect other people. For instance if you downvoted some comment of a third user and that comment gets hidden. I may like that comment but now I don’t see it because you were given a tool that gives you power over me. A tool like that is great for majorities to oppress minorities. As part of several minorities I’ve always been wary of those.
And more and more I think it’s better to completely get rid of the downvote button.
Yep! I wish all Lemmy instances would get rid of the downvote button. So many drive-by serial downvoters would have to find a different hobby.
wrong
How so? Are you defending serial downvoters?
no, just that they would comment negativity instead
People still have all the power via blocking users or instances here.
No. If I block an instance on Lemmy, comments from its users still infest all comment sections.
I am not downvoting you but your reply here is not very well thought out. Perhaps it is just your presentation.
It reads like a “you should smile more, because I am such a nice man” Reddit-esque position, where you should have all the freedom to do whatever you want - e.g. downvote people - but then others should not have the freedoms to respond to your actions in whatever manner they decide is best for themselves?
Perhaps indeed you would be happier at an instance - such as reddthat.com - that disables downvotes, rather than the freedom-loving anarchist lemmy.dbzer0.com. But that would be YOUR choice, you do not get to make MY choices for me.
Also, you are factually incorrect: downvotes are in fact public information, despite how the web UI client and most apps do not provide an easy means to disclose them. e.g. your last downvote (that I can see) was on July 27 for https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/21688252. Anyone at any time can see these, with a tool that discloses that info, and it has always been thus, from the very beginning of Lemmy?
Although I hope you choose to think that thought through more deeply: why should anonymous voting (as you seemed to think it was) be allowed, and also end-users prevented from being able to do anything in response to it? How is that in any way “more” (rather than less) free, when one under-class of users is subject to the nonconsensual recipient of e.g. voting barrages - i.e. you get what you want but neither the recipient nor any innocent third-party bystander is free to do the same? In a truly free society, people need to be able to make choices for themselves - which PieFed provides to end-users in that regard, whereas Lemmy provides that choice only to admins and mods.
Do not gloss over that latter point: there is an enormous distinction between an “institutional(-ized)” echo chamber, where the tools or locality themselves enforces it - an example being lemmy.ml that infamously site-wide bans people from communities that they have never even heard of for comments made in unrelated communities, if they are even slightly critical (or not support enough?) of Russia, China, or North Korea - and the choices of the end user. People should be allowed to dislike things, if that is what they desire, and they should not be forced into using 4chan, if they do not choose to, imho. I can see why authoritarians would want to literally force people into viewing content that they did not want to see, but why would freedom-loving people do so?
Again, do as you please, but I ask that you allow me to do the same (even if I only speak on behalf of those who may choose to use those tools, I am a HUGE fan of their existence, in offering that choice to people for them to make, as they please!:-). As an example, perhaps for 350 days of the year I choose to expose myself 100% to people’s emotional vomiting, but then for a couple weeks I decide to take a break from (waves hands) all of this that is going on in the world - am I allowed to have desires, and to make that choice? PieFed says: ABSOLUTELY, here you are FREE! Lemmy: lol no bitch, you’ll take what a mod decides to offer and like it.
Sorry if I came across too strong here - I recognize that you have been under the oppressive regime of Lemmy and Reddit for so very long, that your position of what “freedom” is (the ability to make choices) is likely very skewed, as mine was too, but the good news is that you do not have to remain under that yoke any longer than you want to: you too are free! Research how PieFed.(social|world|blahaj.zone|ca|zip|au|dk, etc.) works and you will surely stand in awe of it like me! But if not… then that’s okay too, I support your right to do as you please - though I would hope that you would offer the same consideration to others too?
I think you are replying to another person.
I don’t remember writing at any point that downvotes are private. I read again my comments just in case, I didn’t. So I don’t know what’s going on here.
Okay then to get back to the core of the issue and summarize: if you don’t want to use something - a feature, a piece of software, whatever, then do not use it? It really is as simple as that.
I was saying that PieFed offers additional capabilities beyond Lemmy. If you choose not to avail yourself of those, that is entirely your choice, and I support you doing whatever you like in that regard!:-) But so too should others have the identical freedom. I am not debating that places such as 4chan (where anything and everything goes) may have merit or not, just that the subject under discussion was whether “Didn’t piefed came with built-in echo chamber features”, to which I was saying yes sorta but mainly no not really.
Mods on PieFed have one additional option beyond what Lemmy mods have: the latter can only “remove content” vs. “not remove content”, whereas PieFed mods have a more middle-of-the-road option where they can choose to not remove content far more often, trusting that the automated filters will remove the content only for those users who have indicated their preference to not see such, rather than force a choice that affects all users one way or the other. To me that sounds like the literal opposite of the “echo chamber effect”, from the standpoint of the mods, even though yes users can surround themselves in such a bubble if they so choose.
As too they could under Lemmy as well, requiring a bit of effort to block many users but it can definitely be done, whereas PieFed provides the option to use community-based moderation to achieve the same end, and in the process affects each item of content individually, while allowing users to not have to block other users, and thereby all content from them, to achieve this effect. e.g. I could see an icon for a highly contentious user who receives 10x more downvotes than upvotes, and choose to ignore that fact and respond anyway, or else be more measured in my response, or just read it and continue scrolling.
Think about that last option: I would be able to read the content in this scenario, even if I chose not to respond, whereas if I block the entire user account then I will not even see it in the first place? Blocking is a heavy hammer, whereas user labels are the gentlest of informational resources. Lemmy provides ONLY the option to either block vs. not block, both to mods of communities as well as to individual end-users of one another, whereas PieFed provides many alternate forms of nuance via tools that the users can use, or yes abuse, as they so choose.
More choices = freedom. More exposure of content is the opposite of an echo chamber effect. PieFed provides more choices to allow for more exposure of content than Lemmy does, which only offers the removal/block features without the nuances that PieFed allows for.
It’s quite simple.
Each person is an individual, with their own sets of values.
Piefed is only one, if those rules federate (I’m not sure about this) in all piefed there only “one” community.
If you are inline with that community you’ll be very happy with the “community” moderation.
If you are not inline you will not be happy.
Only happy people who is inline with community moderation will stay, because, why stay in a place that you don’t read people you like and other people cannot read you. So then there’s the echo chamber.
If for you the echo chamber is a feature, as it seems, then just admit it. I think we are down to the fact that “echo-chamber” is a name with bad connotations, and thus the pushback. We can give it another name “hideous-free chamber”.
But at the end is a space where you are only going to communicate with people that agree with you. If you like that space then go to that space, it seems that you think that’s positive “not having to be blocking all the time and letting the system block for you”. If you are inline with that system then, as I said, you’ll be happy there.
But don’t sell it as what it’s not. It’s not a place where diverse opinions could exist, by definition. Only the majoritarian opinion could exist there, by design.
I get an issue, because it seems like you are saying that in piefed each person can moderate then there’s “more different moderators”, or something like that. But it’s not, as all moderation, votes, are pack together and there’s only ONE moderation, the moderation of the majority.
At the end, time will tell. Piefed do exist, and it’s rolling. It’s just a matter of giving it time and seeing if the place is more diverse than lemmy or not. Lemmy it’s quite diverse, it’s a hard objective, most people here don’t even agree with Lemmy devs, and there are distinct groups in distinct instances with very diverse values (in fact I get the feeling that piefed was mostly created to separate themselves from one of those groups), let’s see of in a couple of years there’s such diversity in piefed. I don’t know how it’s going to be possible, as people who would have diverse opinions would be affected by the automatic moderation feature and will promptly leave the space, but let’s see.
Downvoted comments being auto-hidden seems like a pretty deliberate choice to censor dissident speech on the anti-communist lemmy spinoff.
I think you are overlooking some aspects here.
First of all, the auto-hiding as a user setting still encourages malicious users to systematically downvote communities or other users they don’t like. One could see, why it does encourage it even more.
The problem is that people who have that feature turned on to filter out trolls simply never see that it is happening and a post like here, where the affected user might seek help from the larger community won’t reach that larger community as it will be filtered by default.
Also on lemmy you can block individual users, so there is no qualitative difference for you individually if you find a particular user annoying. The only difference is that you have to click the dotted menu and block manually. I’d say this is the better approach than to tune metrics based on up-/downvote numbers and ratios.
However if Piefed also used Upvotes/Downvotes as a metric for how likely it will push a post into the “all” of users, systematic downvoting still affects communities negatively. So community moderators from that perspective maintain the same interest to act against systematic downvoting.
I really don’t see how the things you describe for Piefed would change how Mods react to what they perceive as systematic downvoting.
Yes it could encourage it more - granted - and if it became a large problem then all the more reason to remain vigilant. But… why not allow the end user the choice? This is “social media”, we are just chatting here! And if someone knows themselves well enough to realize how easily they get triggered and want a different experience than those of us who would leave that feature turned off, why should they be prevented from such? The fact that this is an “option” provided for the end user to choose from is the crucial difference imho, rather than leave every decision to the admins and mods.
Unless you take the viewpoint that people are too stupid to make choices for themselves and need to be controlled so that they receive solely what is “best” for them - which might or might not be a valid topic we could argue but I was ignoring it here.
And yes, people who have such controversial content filtering will not see… controversial content, by design? That’s not a bug though, it’s a feature? Really! You can turn off that feature - I likewise already have (it was virtually literally the first thing I did upon making my PieFed account) - but if someone wants such content to be hidden/removed, then that is their choice, yeah?
there is no qualitative difference for you individually if you find a particular user annoying
There is a HUGE difference though - don’t you see how blocking users blocks entire USERS, while blocking content (e.g. an individual comment underneath a post) blocks only each individual item of content? It’s a rather ENORMOUS difference actually? What if a user posts both politics and also memes and you enjoy the latter though cannot stand the former? Also, blocking is permanent, no matter how many years pass between the decision and later content.
I really don’t see how the things you describe for Piefed would change how Mods react to what they perceive as systematic downvoting.
Granted that it is up to the mods in question, but PieFed at least offers additional choices that can be made - just as in the example I have regarding Trump and Musk, controversial content could be left in, trusting that those that do not want to see it can choose to filter it out, rather than submit a complaint to the mods (or admins) that they would prefer that such filtering work be done for them (bc once you see something it really is too late to unsee it). Here, one community can have multiple types of users rather than have to make a separate community to serve all the variety of needs.
Which drastically reduces the burden of moderation, as well as increases choice, and encourages posting content that otherwise people may be too hesitant to post for wondering how the community will respond, positively or negatively or neutral. In PieFed it is no longer about the binary decision to “remove content” vs. “not remove content”, but rather connecting users with the content that they most want to see - in part, yes, by filtering out content that the users do not want to see, since attention is a limited commodity.
I made no judgement on whether it should be a feature or not. But it does not resolve the need for mods to address people systematically downvoting, or the risk of mods misusing that power.
Narrowly, yes you are correct. The comment I was originally replying to was:
Didn’t piefed came with built-in echo chamber features, hiding downvoted comments by default and marking people who get downvotes with special marks?
I think in that scenario bans because downvoting patterns would be far more aggressive
Which is how we got into whether those features create echo chambers (as Lemmy already provides for as well) rather than facilitate user choices. I was pointing out how PieFed mods have one additional option beyond what Lemmy mods have: the ability to not remove a comment or post even if it is controversial and thus highly downvoted, knowing that they can rely upon the end users (those that want to) using those filters to ignore the content. i.e. PieFed allows mods to be more lenient, if they so choose, the very polar opposite of an “echo chamber effect”.
Any system still allows for abuses, of course, and PieFed’s all the more relies upon detection of systemic abuses. Although so too have several apps - I am not sure which ones offered such automatic hiding and removal features (perhaps Sync and/or Connect?) but its offering by PieFed was not entirely novel.
Furthermore this is an age-old problem: how to detect and remove spam while preserving legitimate content, how to filter pornography while allowing proper e.g. medical uses, how to stop cancerous cells while allowing the body to heal using cell division normally? Nothing will ever be perfect. Anyway, PieFed provides some features, which people can choose to use or not, as they please. I have argued that no they are not actually “built-in echo chamber features”… even while yes they can be abused towards that end of the spectrum (hence my original answer, “Yes, and maybe, plus no.” - which was not intended to be entirely comprehensive, even if it did delve a bit into some details).
Anything which will cause users of an instance I block to actually be hidden from comment sections I read will be a massive improvement over Lemmy.
When I block .world, it’s because I don’t wish to continue being exposed to .world style takes from .world users. Not sure why this is so hard for the devs of Lemmy to understand.
This feature is already implemented for Lemmy and will be in version 1.0
There’s a PR going on on that issue. It seems pretty advanced in development. But it seems like it’s a feature that will be added shortly.
I’m very happy to hear that. Given how little energy I have to spare, they may well have it fixed before I manage to move to Piefed.
Hhmmmm yeas. Very wise.
Another day, another reason why the fediverse needs private voting. It’s a shame rimu gave into politics and killed the feature from piefed the moment it became a slightly sticky issue.
Private voting will open the door to massive astroturfing
I care about that far less than I care about not having every vote I cast recorded forever by anyone subscribed to the fediverse feed. I care about that far less than power tripping mods and admins being terminally online and using that vote for censorship purposes.
At the end of the day, brigading is mostly an ego thing anyway. If you just stop caring about votes then they can’t hurt you.
Having votes be public doesn’t actually fix the astroturfing problem anyway since it’s still possible to just create sockpuppet accounts anyway. To a bad actors, it doesn’t matter if that sockpuppet is voting from the plaintext user string, or an agent pseudonym. Someone who wants to bot farm the fediverse will still make it happen.
If anything, public votes will make the inevitable enshitification of the fediverse worse, because it will give the viral marketing and political sockpuppet accounts more engagement to parse.
I care about that far less than I care about not having every vote I cast recorded forever by anyone subscribed to the fediverse feed.
Well I think there’s a good argument that account vote history should disappear after X months anyway, as after that long it becomes worthless anyway. Which is how Piefed currently works by the way.
At the end of the day, brigading is mostly an ego thing anyway. If you just stop caring about votes then they can’t hurt you.
It’s not though. Brigading or just a small number of committed chronic downvoters can throttle the spread of a post. Downvote trolls can be a problem for small communities trying to build up as they can successfully bury threads. I managed to discover the serial downvoters on my old lemm.ee community and when I banned them (about 5 of them?) it had a huge impact. They didn’t all downvote /everything/ but they downvoted a lot of things, and they had no contribution to their names. Some of the accounts in question literally had no posting history. These accounts just existed to downvote.
Having votes be public doesn’t actually fix the astroturfing problem anyway since it’s still possible to just create sockpuppet accounts anyway.
Which are all visible publicly and can get banned, and in this case, get instance banned - not just community banned. It doesn’t stop it from ever happening, but it’s more likely you will get banned for that behaviour.
I managed to discover the serial downvoters on my old lemm.ee community and when I banned them (about 5 of them?) it had a huge impact.
I noticed same thing. I’m actually shocked that so many on Lemmy are still surprised at how many serial downvoters we have.
Pretty sure it’s already here
I disagree. That some community owners are petty about it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cultivate a wider high-trust community.
Private things just don’t mesh with the fediverse, tech wise. Your dms aren’t actually private fyi
We still can’t block communities we’ve been banned from?
It seems like at least ten times a week in this community we have to tell people that yes, you can block communities you are banned from so they don’t show up in All.
Yeah, it’s so obvious from the completely blocked out sidebar 🙄
Also, the dev of Lemmy didn’t know it was an issue, so maybe give regular users a break, yeah? https://lemmy.ca/post/48869739/18052704
Use. Your. Settings. Page.
I wouldn’t assume everyone is using the same app for this site, and you shouldn’t either.
They said the dev of Lemmy, meaning it’s a feature that is a part of the site they are using.
It’s also a feature of Piefed as well.
For those curious, it was @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
Is wiseposting supposed to be ironic? Cause that might explain it. Or maybe the goal is to spur discussion instead of simple votes. I dunno I’m too tired and lazy to go check the community right now.
Did you do anything else in the community in question apart from downvoting? Posts, upvotes?
My app lets me block any community.
https://lemvotes.org/user/ech@lemmy.ca
- List of votes for ech@lemmy.ca:
- Total post upvotes: 28
- Total post downvotes: 68
- Total comment upvotes: 532
- Total comment downvotes: 333
voting history
And your old lemm.ee account
- https://lemvotes.org/user/ech@lemm.ee
- Total post upvotes: 165
- Total post downvotes: 905
- Total comment upvotes: 4848
- Total comment downvotes: 3841
Out of curiosity, what was your motivation for posting this?
The OP made a post about their own voting behavior being a issue a moderator banned them for. Looking at their voting record is part of evaluating the the amount of Power Tripping Bastard the moderator is. OP is inviting us to examine their situation to render a judgement.
Their extreme preference for downvoting is a factor here, it is illustrated by their voting record.
I wouldn’t call someone who upvotes more than they downvote “extreme preference for downvoting”. That would be a “slight preference for upvotes”.
If you look at their post voting they downvote 240% more then they upvote.
Compared to your good self who downvotes 11% as much as they upvote.
Not sure why we are looking only at post voting when that is in all cases a sliver of users’ total votes. In this users case, if you include both posts and comments, they upvotes more than they downvote on both accounts.
Also not sure why my personal upvotes/downvote are being evaluated just because I made a single comment on this thread.
it was illustrative to compare OP against a normal user.
And since you are the person I’m talking with, what example would be more relevant?
That’s fair. Did this link show he’s aggressively down voting stuff from that community though? I’ll be honest, I didn’t look at it very hard. I don’t know that website and its hard to tease that info out at a glance.
Not really sure why his old account is relevant either… was he down voting things in this community on this account as well?
Basically, has he really down voted enough to cop a ban? Like, am I wrong, the wise community is a meme community right (I genuinely do not know). Did he go through and down vote a few things or everything?
Since ban evasion is quite easy for now with the federated nature, someone just coming back with a different account is very annoying and in itself a reason to ban the new account.
I had to deal with a serious ban evader in one community that i moderate. Once people show that they don’t respect the decision and are not seeking to resolve any disputes about it through communication, there isn’t really any coming back imo. Then it amounts to a game of “whack-a-mole”.
someone just coming back with a different account is very annoying and in itself a reason to ban the new account.
True… but is this applicable in this instance? Isn’t lemm.ee a closed instance? He didn’t make a new account for ban evasion, he can’t use his old account. He even named his new account the same thing.
If there’s an example here of whatever bad behavior happening on the old account as well, I would agree with you. However, unless someone actually wants to find the number downvotes for Ech on wiseposting it’s not really applicable imo. It seems like there is a real problem in the fediverse (mass downvoting) but no one is really providing proof that Ech has done this, only that he tends to downvote a lot. Might not be targeted, might be he’s just stingy with his upvotes which throws his ratio off.
I don’t know anything about wise. I’m not making a judgement if this ban was justified or not. I’m providing the context someone can use to help make their own decisions.
I can see why a moderator might exclude someone with this past behavior from their community and not give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yea idk at a quick glance its kind of a AITA-style community with less drama involved and probably more humor.
If he was banned for downvoting literally everything the mod was justified.
If he got banned because he is a negative Nancy like you describe, bit of power trip. If he downvoted only a couple things, also a power trip. The single mod may be trying to manipulate scores for his community to get seen. That’s all just my opinion.
Great fucking reply and well-thought out!
Those are rookie ratios, gotta pump those numbers up.
I’m sure mine is much worse because I think this place is full x with idiots and bad opinions.
-
List of votes for bananaisaberry@lemmy.zip:
-
Total post upvotes: 8
-
Total post downvotes: 15
-
Total comment upvotes: 107
-
Total comment downvotes: 90
Not bad, not bad!
I wonder if my old .ee account is worse. That said, I feel like all I do is downvote. Maybe that’s just a bias toward remembering bad interactions than good.
-
Interesting data
Damn. I’m a really apathetic voter.
I upvote way more than I expected to. It feels like all I do is downvote, but my ratio is a bit less than 2:1 in favor of upvotes.
What a creepy thing to post.
Only if it demonstrates a creep.
Ooo! Someone is triggered. The sockpuppets are coming out to vote on this comment…
https://lemvotes.org/user/giacomo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
I don’t have a dog in this fight, the data is the data, the data says what it says. I didn’t provide any spin. If you don’t like the data, be different.
Is it really that easy to pretend all downvotes are from puppet accounts in order to protect your own beliefs?
Not pretending, that is why I provided the data. Some of them.
And what is my belief? I didn’t say anything in the comment, just linked to OPs actions. I’m not defending some philosophical position. OP wants us to evaluate their behavior, and this data is necessary to do so.
It’s almost like some people have a vested interest in wanting to downvote “anonymously” while preventing others from being able to do anything about the result? :-P
Yeah, look at this. This is from r/television, sorted by new.
https://i.imgur.com/3pWsxw1.png
Look at the scores of EVERYTHING. Most stuff on there that doesn’t soar (because its a notable news piece) gets heavily downvoted right out of the gate. I’m not saying all of those threads are great and deserve ++ upvotes, but you just never see this sort of thing at scale on Lemmy - and this is due to public voting practices.
I see it, but yeah I also see what you mean: the scale of it happening here is lesser.
Keep in mind though that the default of collapsing or even hiding controversial content is something like 10 downvotes per every upvote for the former and far more for the latter (2x? 5x? I don’t want to create a new account just to find the current set of defaults but those are what I recall from many months ago when I created this one). Someone could in theory put ridiculous values in the boxes to hide every post with zero upvotes and one downvote, but that is extremely far from the intended use case scenario.
But sure I’ll bite: so what if someone did that though - if that was their choice, then stupid as it might be, and regardless of how it may leave no content leftover after the downvote brigades got through with their efforts, but even so, if someone CHOSE that for themselves, then you have not explained why they should be prevented from screwing themselves over in that manner?
But sure I’ll bite: so what if someone did that though - if that was their choice, then stupid as it might be, and regardless of how it may leave no content leftover after the downvote brigades got through with their efforts, but even so, if someone CHOSE that for themselves, then you have not explained why they should be prevented from screwing themselves over in that manner?
Oh, no I haven’t said people should be prevented from downvoting. It’s simply that on Lemmy, because you can be held accountable (righly or wrongly) by community mods for how you downvote on their community, that it mitigates compulsive downvoting.
Down voting small communities can drown out constructive conversation, and if you down voted the top 3 posts in a community you probably should have blocked it instead.
If the community likes stuff you dislike, it’s probably not the right place for you
Lemmy doesn’t yet support hiding communities from the “all” list from non subscribers (you’d have to use search to find such communities) so you’ll see stuff from communities that are intended for a specific audience, use the block function
Probably not a good place for those communities yet then.
I downvote a lot and no one has fucked with me for it yet
I know. I’ve been the target of your serial downvoting before. But at the time I didn’t know how to ban for it. lol
for using the functions of the website
This talking point is a huge red flag of a shit stirrer. Please provide an example of a mod action taken against anything other than using functions of the website.
Yea this gave me the “I’ll never do anything but downvote because it’s my right” feeling.
