Comment on User "threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works" is banning users for downvoting his posts.
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
Public votes are probably the dumbest lemmy “feature”, so much unnecessary drama because of it.
IMO, it enforces some sort of accountability to people’s voting behaviour. Some of the online forums I frequent have it by default and I’ve never had any problems with it, as I can back my downvotes with arguments if I’m asked to. 🤷
Having said that (and without knowing anything more about the situation): what a weird and most likely pathetic thing to do by that dude.
IMO, it enforces some sort of accountability to people’s voting behaviour.
But that was never something that was needed.
Instead now you get mods like this going around banning people for votes, intimidating people for voting which is removing the communities ability to hold bad posts accountable.
I feel like it is to a certain degree, to discourage trigger-happy voting behaviour that pushes the masses one way or another… this dude is just a clown.
But these clowns are surprisingly common and much more of a problem than some trigger happy votes.
As I said in this thread to someone else.
There are accounts who genuinely do go around downvoting en masse without any contributions. When I was growing my community, I caught about 5 accounts - some with no post history, and no contribution history on my community doing it. They also had a long mod log history of bans for doing it elsewhere.
So I banned them because they kept burying new posts.
Doesn’t seem sound like a major problem to me.
If you look at Reddit, most new posts on any given community get hit with a flurry of downvotes right out of assembly. Because it's all private.
Having upvotes and downvotes public keeps people, broadly, honest and fair minded in how they vote - and mitigates downvote trolls.
I’d rather have the “downvote trolls” than abusive mods with a stalking tool.
I banned 5 accounts from my community who were downvoting, between them, every single post. Sometimes straight out of the box. Should I not do that?
Also users profiles are already viewable and usable as a "stalking tool" by the same logic. Do you also object to that?
No, I don’t think you should ban people for voting and mods shouldn’t even have that info. That is something admins should deal with … and 5 accounts seems hardly worth bothering over.
Also users profiles are already viewable and usable as a “stalking tool” by the same logic. Do you also object to that?
No, they are different. Comments are primarily about expressing your opinion, wouldn’t make sense for them to not be public (that would just be 4chan). Votes don’t need that.
This is why it would be good to limit downvoting to subscribers only
Maybe votes are stupid to start with, a feelgood up or down vote that does nothing for the conversation.
/Rant I remember when you typed out what you liked or disliked. Before the stupid Facebook thumbs-up. It was better before. /Rant off
Votes on sites like this are an algorithm by way of the masses, rather than what you’d find on centralized sites like yt or the like. It’s how the front page gets curated to presumably interesting posts instead of being a random spew of every post made.
Perhaps for some posts / comments. But definitely not for all of them. Votes can often be more useful than just feel good or feel bad. Very busy posts often have hundreds of comments.while certainly silly memes and the like may get upvoted there, often relevant or helpful comments do too, with unhelpful or toxic comments generally getting downvoted. Without that system in place I would have to scroll through those hundreds of comments just to find relevant or helpful info instead of not being at the top because the community provided feedback.
Yeah, I remember dozens of “me too” and “+1” comments after posts people agreed with. It was annoying.
Agreed.
The chans also have no quality filter because of this.
You don’t get banned for words in most boards (all?, I haven’t been there in a decade), but you can’t post CP (and maybe high level gore, again, I don’t recall much) and definitely can’t post anything NSFW in blue boards. For me, that’s enough, as I can deal with words.
For what its worth before hexbear disabled downvotes they looked at who had been systematically downvoting trans peoples posts and a couple transphobes got purged.
Also any drama is around downvoting, no cries about systematic upvoting. Seems like any drama can be avoided if downvoting is just disabled.
Also any drama is around downvoting, no cries about systematic upvoting.
Vote manipulation (think massive upvotes using alt accounts) also get dealt with: lemmy.ca/post/50545875?scrollToComments=true
We literally had this discussion yesterday…
I missed that post, thanks
I'm glad more people are starting to come around on this. Maybe rimu will resurrect voting agents for piefed if the sentiment becomes common enough.
👀
You know you want to
There were more arguments for the anonymous votes to be abused for vote manipulation than power tripping mods
At least they can be hidden unlike on some other reddit
ech@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
There’s not really a way to do votes privately on a federated system. Unless you’re suggesting no votes at all, which could be interesting, but I’m not able to envision a functional way to do that.
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
It’s a minor technical problem.
moseschrute@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
How would it work in your opinion?
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
You use a one-way hash instead of the user-identifying key that is currently used to store the vote value.
jbk@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
didn’t piefed or some other alternative to lemmy add that feature
teft@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Kbin. Piefed doesn’t show you who voted. It does show users “attitude” which is a ratio of upvotes to downvotes that the user has given but it isn’t granular to show what they’ve voted on.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Piefed implemented it, but it didn’t work out for some reason and they ended up having to remove it.
ech@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I’m not talking about blocking users from seeing votes - the nature of federation requires, at the very least, that admins are able to see the data flowing into their instance, which includes voting records. From that point, all it takes at that point is a purpose-made instance to be spun up that will catalogue all the votes that it federates with and publish them. In fact I’m pretty sure this already exists.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Thinking out loud, one way hashes would work as a way to keep the id of user votes secret whilst avoiding vote duplication.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Not to remote servers