Pika

I’m not really sure why they say that, looking at it the UI looks pretty sleek

This is good news that the instance is back up again. But as an Outsiders pov, I’m going to be super hesitant on wanting to interact with the instance since it’s already proven to be shut down once.

Being said, I love to see people monopolizing on better technology that have more feature sets, and honestly it looks pretty dang cool

yea its just using the word sustain when removing something non-renewable makes me chuckle

I love how that’s tagged “sustainable mining” as if mining anything can actually be sustainable.

I’ve actively told any friend that send me a voice note that if you want me to respond to you don’t send it as a voice note, I won’t listen to it. It requires me to put headphones in or play it on speaker, and neither of those are happening unless it’s important.

hard agree, voice messages are the worst of both worlds, you can’t look at it and get the gist of what’s said, and you have to deal with listening to it, while requiring more bandwidth to use.

I’ve told my friends instead of pressing the voice button, just press the speech to text button, I’m more likely to read a wall of text than listen to a voice message.

If you really don’t want to explain why you are down-voting, I really don’t think people should be down-voting.

there are many times that you can down-vote without a requirement of explaining. Sometimes your point has already been made by another person, other times it’s just a really bad take or the person is so dead-set that honestly you couldn’t change the persons mind even if you explained it. Sometimes the comment is just hostile to the current situation or the OP, sometimes the comment is just super off-topic. Some situations allow for down-votes without explaining it.

I personally down-vote for off-topic and harassing posts as it helps the system sort what is considered helpful to the discussion. I would refuse to down-vote for harassing and off-topic if this system is in place, as it creates an attack vector for the person to come after me, a situation that would require either blocking them or bugging a mod for, which is something that personally I just don’t want to deal with in my life so I would simply just not participate in the vote.

Not sure where you are pulling the “new users get filtered out as untrustworthy”,

The type of system proposed inherently causes it as a side effect. When you have a system that is crowdsourced from the popular opinion, you create an echo chamber that only shows content from sources that have been deemed as appropriate, as such not only do you lose the arguing side, you also lose content from people who are not established/just starting out as they are not profiled as that side. as for examples? Two examples of sites that use that style system include Stackoverflow, which uses a rep system to decide how much access you can get into, and some of the larger reddit sites which went off the karma system to even allow posting in them. There are also other examples in reddit, but the karma block system was the most predominant (followed by sub rule filters which filtered out based off bias).

I do believe that a karma system is best type of system however I believe that the metric should be hidden from sight. This will allow for helpful comments to rise to the top, but will remove the hard focus “score” ideology that everyone has. In this system you wouldn’t know if you were down-voted in the first place, which means you wouldn’t be aware of someone maliciously down-voting you, and it would also do what you want where it would force someone if they had a super big issue with what was posted to actually comment on it. That being said, this system can not exist in a federated environment so therefore the next best thing is either anonymous (to all but mods/admins due to moderation and federation control reasons) or just not having the system as a whole.

the world is an interesting place, the very reasons you gave “for” it is why I was against it. I don’t agree that it won’t cause witch hunts, and from the POV of the commentor it might be nice, but from the POV of the person who is giving the vote, it’s a severe downgrade.

Especially considering the fact that if the person downvoted but didn’t leave a comment afterward they likely would not have downvoted in the first place if it wasn’t anonymous because they don’t want to have to deal with the social interaction of someone trying to push them to explain further. Not everything needs a detailed this is why I feel this way, that’s why there is a upvo and down vote system in the first place, to prevent everyone from leaving a comment of I agree with this / I disagree with this / this is on topic / this is off topic

In addition to this, to say that no one’s giving reasons of why voting should be private, I don’t think that’s a truthful statement there are plenty of reasons that people have provided via privacy, security and sometimes just mental state.

You mentioned that you want to have a system where you choose what people you see and the people you don’t agree with don’t appear., I think that type of environment is extremely unhealthy for a social media platform. It’s why other platforms that have curated that content is starting to become a cesspool. I really don’t want to see lemmy become one big Echo chamber, it’s not healthy to have only one ideology that you see at all times and let’s face it that’s what that system you’re proposing would introduce.

Additionally the system your proposing is going to run into the same issue as the other websites that have attempted to do, this sort of system leads to new people inadvertently getting filtered out as untrustworthy, which will mean that they’re not getting activity on their posts/ comments as well which means that they’re just going to move on to another platform.

Honestly, I think I would rather just have the score system be removed as a whole then see that type of system implemented

they could do similar to another platform had done, which is tie voting to a shadow account that only the instance admin team can link to a user, this allows for moderation while providing the ability for obscurity.

I still disagree it should be public in the first place, but I know it’s a hard requirement for federation so it’s unlikely to become more concealed

I can agree with that, I myself am guilty of blocking people who are hostile with their ideologies, I do believe that would be handy. But I know there is definitely people who are just going to block every person that has to do with their ideology, and giving them the ability to see the downvotes see who disagrees with their ideology I don’t think it is healthy/should be promoted

They aren’t, however that doesn’t mean that because one exists the other should do the same.

My instance while it has the ability to see scores I keep them turned off, I find the score system as a whole to be counterproductive to a healthy environment as it encourages an echo chamber effect. an effect that by making every vote public to the standard person will just become worse as now the people who were voicing their opinion via the downvote/upvote system, will think twice about voicing in the first place. It also removes the people who are non-combative/confrontational from giving an opinion as it links a name to the score. There’s tons of people that would like to give their opinion about things, but don’t want it to be able to be looked up easily, and don’t want to be confronted about that opinion.

If conversations were healthy and always on topic I would fully agree with a public info voting system, but, there is no system in place to prevent someone from getting super pissed off that you downvoted their comment that’s about how they love the color red when the conversation at hand is to do with the financial stability of McDonald’s so they decide to just Branch out and nuclear downvote every other comment you have, or decide to try to harass you in your other comments. Yes you can block them and you can get the instance team involved but that can only go so far especially if the problamic user is part of a different instance, and like you said moderation is already strained so there’s no point in giving even more work to them

The better solution in my opinion, is just keep the barrier in place, and honestly if it had the ability to I would say restrict down what the API provides regarding scores even further, but I’m fairly certain that the way it is due to the need of being able to Federate.

This is actually something I have not thought of, the only issue is that people are going to use it as a I like this instead of this is high quality, which I think is the biggest hindrance of that. This is also going to be nearly impossible to moderate on a federation level because an instance could be spun up that would lie about the reputation of an account and everyone would just go to that instance due to the fact that it doesn’t have that restriction

I mean this is a benefit, I’m just worried that this is going to create a echo chamber, Facebook has the same issue where people just hide post that they don’t agree with which basically makes it so the only content they see is content they agree with and it’s never positive to have only one side of an argument. That’s a big reason of why the US politics system is failing(sorry it’s just the biggest example I can think of) it’s too segregated between the two major parties so nothing can ever get done

I fully agree with this in the terms of removing stuff that doesn’t have to do with the conversation or topic, but I don’t agree on filtering People based off opinion, which is what I’m worried this would cause

So the API does disclose who upvotes and downvotes, however since the major front ends themselves don’t show to everyday users, it’s walled off to finding a frontend that is able to view them and to mod/admins of the instance.

Currently it takes someone to be somewhat savvy to be able to do that, this proposal is making everything public period, which would remove that wall

I partially agree with you, the voting system as a whole should be removed in my opinion or upvotes publicized but down vote should not. It’s far too easy for down vote which is used commonly as in off topic or disagree to be taken the wrong way and cause targeted harassment. Making the whole thing public as a whole is just going to make dissants refuse to give their opinion strengthening echo chamber issues

I don’t even run with votes enabled(I can vote but can’t see scores) on my clients, but like yeah this will definitely make me second guess any type of interaction with voting for both directions because I don’t want to become a target for harassment. It defeats the purpose in my opinion of having the system in the first place if someone can’t truthfully vote the way they want.

This is a lot of work for something that shouldn’t be problem with a voting system in the first place, like there is no point in voting if it’s not anonymous. I can see the reason that mods and admins should have to have it but it defeats the purpose of voting in the first place if it’s not anonymous, personally speaking if one should be fully open, up votes should be not Anonymous but down votes which are going to be the target of harassment should be anonymized

That’s great to hear, I love eternity as a client because none of the other ones that I’ve tried so far have come close to what I’m looking for in a UI and I like the ability to block comments and posts by specific keywords, it really helps when the entire platform as a whole becomes hyper focused on one subject because I can just add that subject to the block list and filter out the flood

I agree, everyone will have their own opinions of things, I do think there is a good reason to re-enforce the core values of the platform though, as that is the thing that separates this platform from the others. To revoke that would be to fall back against the same values that a lot of people on this platform joined it for, which is a decentralized freedom of choice platform. It was the main advertisement point of the fediverse, the ability to be free of a corporation or “superuser” choice. A lot of the people on the platform are a triage of “refugees” that fled to this platform from various sources either by limitation of speech or by their host site becoming toxic/unusable. As much as I hate “drinking the koolaid” I do have to agree that this the entire point of the freedom of federation is what makes this style of sites better than the other alternatives.

I might have not been clear, all my comments have been pro opt-out, not opt-in. I’m not sure where I was confusing in that so I will attempt to clarify

I responded to your comment of if “people genuinely wanted to use your bot, they would opt in” with my statement that that type of system is counterproductive to the freedom of choice that the Fediverse is built off, many people would never know the bot existed in the first place if it just doesn’t show. If you don’t like bots, fine, block them (or disable bot posts in settings if that button works, ive never personally tested it) and move on. Removing the choice from the users is not a fair option because it doesn’t preserve the freedom of the platform, which is giving everyone the choice.

It seemed like you have an actual hatred of bots in general, which is fine, to each their own, so I recommended that rather than subject yourself to having to deal with them, just turn them off. I don’t understand why you would want to subject yourself to seeing something you dislike.

Without looking into a detailed history of what you might have said that spurt it, Pay attention to the instances that it’s coming from, a lot of times you will notice that those users are coming from specific instances. I noticed this as well and there’s some instances that I haven’t blocked fully yet but I am debating.

It is very toxic, but if you don’t let it get to you it’s just a simple block and move on. I don’t see as much toxicity on the platform as I did a few months ago by doing this method, and there are quite a bit of people that do take the time to give constructive feedback and have a civil conversation.

My experience overall on the fediverse is overall positive.

Hidden text because is off topic from ops post >! and while this is a little off topic of your post I would also encourage people to turn off your scores(the upvote/downvote system). Most third-party clients give you the ability to do it and I have had them turned off myself basically since my second month mark. It helps remove a lot of the hive mind / populous bias/ Argumentum ad populum(this is a link it’s just spoiler hides it) that occurs by being able to see the scores. Due to the fact that the system works as a whole by judging the score in the sorting system you don’t lose the ability to see the more popular stuff towards the top, so really unless you care about how many people are liking your posts, there is no cons to disabling!<