this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)

main

1337 readers
6 users here now

Default community for midwest.social. Post questions about the instance or questions you want to ask other users here.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TLDR: 3 people working together can gatekeep content on the "active" and "hot" feeds on smaller servers/communities.

After some playing around, I noticed posts disappear after reaching a threshold. A quick search later and I'm in the Lemmy docs reading about how this all works.

In plain English, any three people working together (or one person with three accounts) can stop posts from appearing on the default feed. Once a post reaches -2 it will only appear to people who browse "new." Edit: Of course, it reappears after it climbs above -2, but it's a race against the clock.

As a smaller server, we're vulnerable to this. But we also have some extra mitigations - namely, @[email protected] has to approve everyone who joins, and that might weed out bad actors.

So what can you do? Upvote content liberally, downvote sparingly.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Beehaw just got rid of downvotes entirely. I'm mildly convinced that's the way to go, but I don't hold strong opinions about it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The reason reddit worked so well for so long was primarily due to downvoting. There's drawbacks and it could certainly be improvedb, ut having a system where those who contribute rise to the top, while those who don't get filtered out makes it worth it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I was against it at first, because I don't like options being taken from me, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

The whole idea is based on the false equivalency that upvotes and downvotes are equal, when in fact people feel negatives much more strongly, and they also tend to have an oversized impact, like mentioned by OP.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think getting rid of downvotes can also make social media more negative, since people feel the need to reply to things they don't like instead of down voting and moving on. Of course, I now can't find a source to back that claim, so take it with a grain of salt.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source: personal experience. Usenet was a wretched hive of trolls and flame wars. I will gladly sacrifice a few unpopular takes if that's what it takes to do away with that nonsense. And I can tell you, from experience, works. For every unpopular take at a score of -2 or so, there are probably ten more at -9000 that we can totally do without.

Yes, it means that people expressing an unpopular opinion have to be very careful with tone and phrasing. But they ought to be doing that anyway. Nobody ought to think they can just waltz into a community, say something that completely contradicts their raison d'etre without any attempt at respectful framing, and expect to be welcomed with open arms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What I dislike about this is that people who might have something interesting to say or discuss would be discouraged from posting altogether because of the effort involved in carefully crafting their "tone and phrasing" . Like we could still have a report function so a moderator can identify and take down obviously inflammatory -9000-type posts, right? I think people tend to back into their shells when they see their post (which could very possibly already be well thought-out) downvoted to shit for no other reason than the 'monkey-see monkey-do' downvote behavior. In the long run, it seems like it leads to stagnation. I've seen it happen on some of my favorite subreddits as they get more popular and sadly echo chambered. Just my opinion tho.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

A comment is usually a lot more expressive than a downvote, adding valuable context to something other than just marking something as bad.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People from instances where it‘s active or even kbin would still be able to downvote though, wouldn‘t they?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

They can hit the button, but Beehaw won't register the downvote. In fact, as best I can tell it changes them into upvotes. I use Jeroba, so when I'm looking at Beehaw I still see the downvote button, but when I try to use it, I get error messages.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Beehaw really is creating a super safespace for the not-so-well adjusted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's the beauty of this kind of system though. beehaw can setup their server however they want, if you don't like how they have things set up don't use their local, you can either choose to interact with it through other federated instances or not.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they get rid of them, or did they hide it from the UI? Bots are the ultimate threat here, and they won't use the UI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Both. Downvotes aren't taken into account for all beehaw posts and comments. Even if someone downvotes a beehaw post from another instance, it just won't send.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't consider federation. I'm not sure what prevents me from creating an instance with three users that vote on other servers. I can't run this test tonight. Hopefully someone gave that some thought.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~Post karma~~
Post's total votes
Edit : @[email protected] please consider changing this post's title