OpenStars @ OpenStars @discuss.online Posts 44Comments 3,853Joined 1 yr. ago
Is it really the fault of the system then, if it was set up with one intention but then was abused?
Btw, reddthat.com has downvotes disabled, so if you made an account there you would never see them again. The downvotes would still affect the sorting of the comments on other instances though, and thereby the frequency of replies.
I for one want downvotes, if I say something incorrect then I deserve it, but I don't want downvotes from people who are just trolling - nor upvotes from them, nor replies either - bc then it takes some of my time and attention to try to guess what is going on, and sort true facts from their fictional views of the world.
So for me, it's not "voting" that I would like to see addressed and fixed, but rather the presence of trolls. Which PieFed (and the Lemmy apps Sync and Connect) provide many tools to help with, e.g. it can block all users from an instance, unlike the Lemmy feature of the same name that merely acts as a community muting but does not actually block the users themselves in any way.
I love how PieFed is heavily pushing towards the democratization of moderation, but that's another subject altogether I suppose:-).
But then they would be easier to spoof and thereby enact vote manipulation.
PieFed was doing some experiments along those lines. Personally I don't like the idea of fully anonymous voting and would rather go the other way and make them fully public - that would give people pause before doing things like downvoting every single reply to a post or every post in a community, or following people around and downvoting everything that they do.
Voting ideally would be a 2-way proposition where someone can offer their opinion, and the recipient should have the ability to choose whether to receive it or not - i.e. be able to block someone who is abusive, or whole entire instances where that is exceedingly common (cough Hexbear cough, and their very common alts on Lemmy.ml).
Lemmy.ml enacts censorship in this manner as well
I was talking about censorship in general, but you might be right specifically about Luigi mentions on those instances, I would not know.
There are whole entire communities dedicated to discussion of this effect - e.g. !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works.
Your example removed comment is fair, although done by a community mod rather than as the OP article here suggests done without the Reddit sub mods even being able to see the comments prior to removal. Then again, Lemmy.World is rather authoritian on the spectrum. You can always move your account to some other instance that you prefer better btw, like lemmy.dbzer0.com if you want a more anarchist experience or slrpnk.net for communism.
The beauty of Lemmy is not that we are a so-called "free speech platform" - bc we are definitely NOT that! - but rather that we can easily shift over to somewhere else if need be, even spin up our very own instance (that one takes resources, time, and technical knowledge).
For example, I've given up on most of the largest communities on Lemmy.world, most of the time, and subscribe rather to smaller versions elsewhere.
Yes, but note that it was happening here as well. Certain places here were HIGHLY active in the BoTh SiDeS sAmE activity, just prior to the USA election, and similarly influenced other elections world-wide. Learn which places these are, so that you can take full advantage of the Fediverse, which isn't "a place" so much as a forum software that allows many many places to share their content - but all sides here are NOT equally dedicated to truthiness.
Here is one example:
Judge for yourself what you think might be the intention for making and spreading it... although if we are going by the mantra of the effects that it may have caused possibly being the reason for which it was made, it looks to me to suggest that people in the USA should not be enthusiastic about voting or encouraging others to vote for Kamala Harris.
Edit: to be clear I'm not suggesting that Lemmy is "the same" as Reddit - in some ways we are worse here, being even more authoritian than Reddit was (or rather "is" I guess:-P), but in other ways it's so, so much better, in that we can pack up and move to another instance and simply carry on, having access to the vast majority of content as before (exceptions include defederations and a DM directed to our old account won't follow us), which was (oops, "is" again:-) not true for Reddit.
There’s only one reddit. Only one twitter. Only one facebook. Only one youtube.
Not anymore, on the Fediverse, and I'm here for it.:-)
These are the kinds of helpful comments that made Reddit a great platform to visit, once upon a time. Now, I'm glad that we still get to read this type instead on the Fediverse.:-)
It likely looks to them as if the accounts that remain to be moderated are humans, the same as it was in the past, even though it's no longer that way now.
They've already been caught doing that - well, not for disinformation spreading but for engagement appearance, around the time Reddit was doing its IPO so needed to hike its stats to give to advertisers as quickly as possible. While entire posts, comment for comment, though with different usernames but the identical responses to the identical questions, and then deeper responses to those, and so forth.
So they don't need the appearance of older accounts - they can manufacturer whatever they need, from scratch already. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they created "10 year old" accounts at will.
Reportedly Reddit was not always that way though, earlier on.
Imagine if someone comments with what you see as a stupid take, but phrases it as a legitimate question indicating a willingness and even eagerness to learn: I often upvote such, bc that's an attitude that I'd like to see more of. The alternative for them would be to keep silent and remain in their ignorance?
Conversely, someone that says "^This" - I may likewise agree with whatever they responded to, but that's what upvotes on the latter content is for, and there's no need to also upvote the former along with that.
Apparently saying [some stuff] is now against the rules too even though they never told us
Lemmy.ml enacts censorship in this manner as well, as too does Midwest.social. But there are so very many other instances that do not, making the former easy to avoid while being able to engage with a ton of content:-).
The ultimate trolly problem solution!
Silly!? Low-effort?! On the Fediverse?!
Sounds like !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone to me! 🤪
Bonus points that Demo(n)crats may even cease to exist entirely (Trump says his win gives ‘mandate’ for ‘far reaching investigation’ into Democrats).
Isn't intelligence somewhat like the word "good" - as in, someone must be "good at" something, rather than inherently. Are cars "good"? (sometimes but not always...) Are cats? Are people? e.g. regarding the latter, there are many tasks for which a computing device is much better than most people - e.g. sorting a list of >1000000 elements, within one second (and then doing that task, without pausing or slowing down or error, in perpetuity). So the term "good" is only definable given a known fitness landscape.
Which then becomes somewhat naive to try to extrapolate beyond that - bc then someone good at sports could be said to be "intelligent" (at performing their particular sport?), or someone with high emotional flexibility at adaptive to new circumstances, etc. Ironically enough, someone with good accounting skills (always thinking within the box, that being the whole point for them) would likely make a horrible scientist (who needs to think OUTSIDE of the box), and potentially though not guaranteed vice versa.
So intelligence must be reflective of.... SOMETHING, blah blah hand waving meaning things that "I" am good at, basically. I know right, I have all the best-er-est words, I am such a jenius, and so on.
How would that measure the intelligence of a tribal person who has not seen abstracted geometrical shapes?
So yeah, they would be less "intelligent" at performing those tasks that are measured by the test. Corollary: people on average may legitimately have gotten more intelligent over time, depending on availability of schooling. Thus necessitating adjustment of the measurement system, if the real goal was not to measure "intelligence" and rather to provide some kind of separation among people based solely on that singular metric (which itself should be questioned, if the people doing so are wise rather than merely intelligent:-).
Hrm, I would hate to think so but... maybe? If only it would helpfully label itself, we could appreciate the message itself untainted by such worries.
For or against won't matter when he's made king.