YOU FOOL! He’s going to think you are a peach now, RUN!

Even if there is no attempt to kill you, the physical abuse and attempts to force you into vulnerable and risky situations will, and you are already vulnerable. Maybe you can contact some form of social service or disability services and report the circumstances. Some guides suggest contacting the police, but it wouldn’t be my first option - maybe try to contact probono lawyers who could help you like this https://www.ohiojusticefoundation.org/tom-and-gerry-cincinnati-attorneys-contribute-hundreds-of-hours-of-pro-bono-service/ in case things get serious. Leave a trail that indicates that the threat has been made. You can also try to get in contact with organizations like Ohio Democrats, but do so quietly. I’d try to lay low if I were you until you can move out, maybe even just throw them a bone by trying to virtue signal their cult thinking until you can get away safely. Definitely clear or hide your browsing and account history so they can’t trace it back to posts like this, and maybe just leave a less threatening persona account that if they do find they would have less of an issue with.

Oh, I’m sorry about the Linux thing, Russia.

He forgot to gold plate his Tesla, that’s why.

It has been growing, but it depends on the community the people who are submitting posts of each community. It also depends on the engagement of the discussion and whether participation decays or is allowed to decay into toxicity.

I think Lemmy could be doing a lot more than Reddit, like showing who votes what, but people want the ability without the responsibility or transparency. It’s ironic because not only is it perfectly visible to the admins, but there are ways you can get a pretty good idea of who’s performing them as a normal . It would help not just in the sense of getting a better idea of why or where someone is coming from and prevent false suspicions, but it would also allow you to keep different groups of users whose recommendations might be something you would like to prioritize over other submissions or whose moderation you’d like to favor over the standard. Abusing the transparency would be easy to denounce and moderate, too.

In regards to the modlog, I don’t think it’s doing enough, the text in the reason field might as well be “word” and the transparency isn’t compensating for the lack of a resolution process that many if not all social networks seem to want to skip. There are still things like no notification of mod actions that affected your comments or your user, and some decisions, like allowing mods to ban you, remove some of your comments while allowing others to remain, shaping or serving a narrative without giving you the ability to delete or edit your contributions while the ban is in place, give foreign instances and communities more power than they should have.

There’s no way to contest modlog actions within the modlog, and the maturity of the people has been proven to be very, very questionable when they’ve been outed. It has also adopted reddit’s policy of obfuscating the moderator performing an action even though creating an alt is easier than ever and many of them already have them, which works against the supposed commitment to transparency.

But it’s very slightly better than reddit’s, and there’s nothing like shadow bans here. Parting observations, don’t feed your carnivore pet vegetables if you aren’t prepared to go all the way to seek and get an approved diet and dietary supplements for a bonafide veterinary, and it’s funny seeing all the anarchy people not have a problem with the present power imbalance between the users and the leadership within the current system, but then again, they have a nice instance with the label.

Overall, fuck spez.

But those lawsuits aren’t at the federal level, they are at the state level, or so I understand. The secret service operates at the federal level. And if they are at the federal level, well, the Supreme Court has been stuffed and they’ve been pretty flagrant at expanding GQP corruption mechanics.

Oh no! You’ve got trapped in the first level of nested parenthesis! To get out, you need to go down two levels to where I was trapped, and here’s the tricky part, you have to make sure you leave with the correct number of parenthesis and then you are out ok.

Listen to ugly people music (or vtuber music, same thing (na, just kidding around with vtuber insecurities (help I’m trapped inside this nested parenthesis))) nevermind, got out.

The eventual outcome of the slippery slope that comes from justifying colonial interests that were legitimized in cooperation with the Nazis under the Haavara Agreement under the vise of religion.

A VPN is just essentially a change in ISP.

Users could also be doing and reporting the checking up - if votes were transparent - and they would be able to do it on far wider scale. Oh those leopards, eating your faces, vote obfuscation proponents.

Not my instance, but after perusing those links, what’s the point? “Generally” this, “generally” that, paired with vague obligations. Doesn’t matter a bit if you have an actual problem with a member of the administration time and the rest buddy up and play silent.

Let me ask you this, you’ve been up for quite a while, you’ve had staff rollovers, you must have had issues with at least one of your admins. Have you been transparent about them and reached out to anyone who might have been affected by them and publicly apologized and addressed any actions on their behalf, or have you played coy and just ignored them and kept quiet about them, releasing at best only excuses that have kept any internal drama hidden lest they affect the donation/income streams?

Not really launching any accusations, but actions speak louder than words. Look at Reddit, it has a decent community guideline, and it means shit except whitewashing when it comes to actual enforcement.

If those are your examples, then you are misunderstanding my proposition. Some of the reasons you suggest to downvote are not good reasons to me, but that’s point, everyone has their own criteria and their own preferences for the comments they would like to be reading over others. By denying them the ability to choose, you are imposing an arbitrary and fallible karma system. Hiding it really doesn’t fix it, you are denying the alternative because you feel the absolute worst case will occur. Yet right now it is possible, and does not happen.

I know that’s probably why you do, like I said, people feel really insecure about it. I don’t really respect irrational insecurity though. Your comment history could also lead to witch hunts, yet no worries there… If it does need to be handled, it should be done by automatically deleting your old up/downvotes and comments. But no one is asking for that with comments either… They only take in issue because they don’t want to be held accountable to their votes, even if the probability is practically zero and extremely exceptional.

If you really don’t want to explain why you are downvoting, I really don’t think people should be downvoting. I very rarely downvote, and there are plenty of comments I neither upvote or downvote simply because not everything should be rated nor am I capable of doing so. It is toxic.

You already have a system where people with alts and moderation privileges decide what you see and don’t see, this will happen regardless with information saturation. What I want to have is putting that in the hands of the users. Whether it will be good or bad will depend on the users, and because it would be complementary, you could still accept the traditional or default method. More choice is not bad, it is the users that make it bad, and in this case, they would make it bad only for themselves. But it would also be easy to work this system into something like https://ground.news , where as with a homogeneous imposition you don’t have a choice nor even an idea of what is being censored if you don’t go out of your way to find out. If it’s completely transparent, you could even look through the eye of another user’s moderation settings to see the sort of content they are getting.

Not sure where you are pulling the “new users get filtered out as untrustworthy”, the system I’m proposing would do not such thing. This seems more like a projected insecurity without specific examples that can be countered.

Without a karma system, the problem then goes back to which comments show up first and which might not show up at all. That’s just a traditional forum thread, where the newest comments do.

That would be an argument to support alts natively in regards to the sub and instances you are participating in, and isn’t that compromising as it can already be checked.

I don’t even think generally anyone even tries to reveal any personally identifiable details to social network account on reddit let alone lemmy. Maybe influencers and people seeking recognition, but they are going to be using alts anyway.

Forget downvotes, if you are anyone of note and people know your username, they are going to spend hours searching through your comment history, and that’s going to be far more incriminating than an upvote or a downvote.

Sorry dude, maybe you can read other better worded comments in this thread that share the same sentiment.

This is a copy and past from my reply another community, sorry if you are reading it again:

I’m at the completely opposite end of the spectrum of most people, they should be public to all. It makes it clear whether the guy downvoting you is doing so maliciously or as a non-participant. Same for upvotes. Otherwise, just get rid of it and find some better mechanism. The people saying “NO!” or that they should be anonymous don’t really have a reason, your comment history is already giving you away and no one has a problem with that.

The worst thing public upvotes/downvotes might lead to are the same things your comments are already profiled for by the same people that would and perhaps a random getting mad at your downvote or upvote and voting back, which doesn’t matter that much with the current karma system. The benefits, however, are a clear vision of where those upvotes and downvotes are coming from, without it you are a blind person in a social networks but with it you can tell who is interacting with you and you can investigate why and even make judgement calls because you can see whether they interact like a jerk.

No drama witch hunts, accountability for the way you are interacting online, the the benefits outweighs the drawbacks, but people don’t want it because they feel insecure about it. I specially favor it because it could be a first step for a form of crowdsourced moderation (speculated on it here), where you can choose the people you think are voting comments to your taste to eventually have a select group large enough to determine which should show up first and which shouldn’t show at all, and it could be completely complementary to existing systems. Don’t want to see “yes, I agree” comments sorting as the most relevant? You might choose people who do not upvote but have engaged with the rest of the thread for comments you consider more informative.

No one from kbin/mbin instances can check out the downvotes you make, since this attitude has been so widespread many don’t report it to those instances. They can see people who upvote, and the sky hasn’t fallen because of it. Anonymity largely only helps the minority making the drama remain hidden.

I’m at the completely opposite end of the spectrum of most people, they should be public to all. It makes it clear whether the guy downvoting you is doing so maliciously or as a non-participant. Same for upvotes. Otherwise, just get rid of it and find some better mechanism. The people saying “NO!” or that they should be anonymous don’t really have a reason, your comment history is already giving you away and no one has a problem with that.

The worst thing public upvotes/downvotes might lead to are the same things your comments are already profiled for by the same people that would and perhaps a random getting mad at your downvote or upvote and voting back, which doesn’t matter that much with the current karma system. The benefits, however, are a clear vision of where those upvotes and downvotes are coming from, without it you are a blind person in a social networks but with it you can tell who is interacting with you and you can investigate why and even make judgement calls because you can see whether they interact like a jerk.

No drama witch hunts, accountability for the way you are interacting online, the the benefits outweighs the drawbacks, but people don’t want it because they feel insecure about it. I specially favor it because it could be a first step for a form of crowdsourced moderation (speculated on it here), where you can choose the people you think are voting comments to your taste to eventually have a select group large enough to determine which should show up first and which shouldn’t show at all, and it could be completely complementary to existing systems. Don’t want to see “yes, I agree” comments sorting as the most relevant? You might choose people who do not upvote but have engaged with the rest of the thread for comments you consider more informative.

No one from kbin/mbin instances can check out the downvotes you make, since this attitude has been so widespread many don’t report it to those instances. They can see people who upvote, and the sky hasn’t fallen because of it. Anonymity largely only helps the minority making the drama remain hidden.

If you aren’t GQP-brainwashed, you are concerned.

Happened to me with an even bigger instance because of an asshole admin making shit up. A solution might be to divide up the host of the user comments versus the moderator agents versus receiver of the comments. If your host bans you, that’s it, but if the receiver bans you, that only affects their users, and if a moderator agent group bans you, that only bans you from their distribution group of moderator agents but could be read by other groups.

If a community / group-of-moderator-agents-under-a-community-tag-for-a-particular-host bans you, you’d have to find another groups of moderator agents or accept all that are allowed by your host. Accepting all allowed by your host could only realistically exclude the worst offenders - spammers, doxxers, etc - so you’d really be incentivized to find a better block of moderator agents if you want to avoid certain types of comments. People who want to live in a bubble could live in a bubble but people who want to prioritize the greatest participation would try to find the most lenient host and the most lenient moderation agents, at least to their particular sensitivities.

It would be a truer federated model, but this is not lemmy as it is.