this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Fedigrow

314 readers
2 users here now

To discuss how to grow and manage communities / magazines on Lemmy, Mbin, Piefed and Sublinks

Resources:

Megathreads:

Rules:

  1. Be respectful
  2. No bigotry

founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
 

Dog-piling is when someone expresses an opinion and people swarm in the comments telling the OC how wrong they are and how right they are. Typically the person getting dogpiled is downvoted into oblivion in the process. Note that I'm not talking about anything controversial in their opinion or the comment being trolling in any way; just any general disagreement with the groupthink.

Brief example:

User 1:  There are lots of factors at play here, not just money.  There's X, Y, Z, and those are all independent from money.
  |____> User 2: No, it's money.  It's always money
  |______>  User 4: Right?  How can anyone think it's anything *but* money?  Some people!
  |____> User 3: Yes, well, X, Y, and Z wouldn't be a problem if not for capitalism, so it's definitely money, and you're wrong.
  |____> User 5: It all boils down to money; always does.
  |____> User 6: Of course it's money.  Only a capitalist bootlicker would think otherwise.
  |____> User 7: Go back to Reddit, troll.
  |____> User 8: You're so close, but it's money.  
  ...
  |____> User 999: (Same as the last 998 comments; contributes nothing except attacking the opinion for being different)

None of that adds anything to the discussion; they're not engaging on the subject, just attacking the opinion because it differs.

That behavior does not seem healthy to me and seems like it's almost designed to discourage anyone from expressing any opinion that's not part of the established group think. Again, I am not talking about trolls here, just any kind of differing opinions.

Should that kind of behavior be discouraged? If so, as a mod, what would be the best way to address it? After the 2nd or 3rd dogpile comment, start removing subsequent ones that are just piling on?

It's definitely a people problem, so I'm curious what would be a gentle but firm way to deal with it.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

Completely agree with your take here and now I feel even worse for sniping at your sort-of-Unpopular Opinion the other day!

Very amusing (and perceptive) example, BTW. It's exactly like that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

When a topic gets too heated we have the ability to lock a post, it would also be useful to lock a comment for more granular control.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah, locking a thread would be ideal. Am definitely known to lock a post when things get out of hand, but having the granularity to only lock down the too-spicy / non-productive thread would be way better and more fair to everyone else who's not being an asshat.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does dogpiling happen on Lemmy? I'm a refugee.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

It happens. I have seen it on my comments, I have seen it on others. This is largely human behaviour - this person has said something so wrong, I must correct them, times 10 billion

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Sometimes, but much less compared to Reddit.

Welcome here, here are a few pointers for you

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

If someone stands in front of a crowd and yells an opinion, I don't think they should get angry when they get a bunch of replies instead of having the crowd elect a spokesperson who then gives a committee-decided solo reply.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Obviously the crowd wouldn't elect anyone, they just have to accept what the first person to respond says!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I got this for saying I downvote copypasta. The whole thing was ridiculous, of course I doubled down.

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

Being an instance with downvotes disabled sorta helps for this imo

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

Can you explain how? Removing downvotes removes a signal, which I would think leads to an increase in the other two signals, upvoting and commenting. Since dog-piling is excessive commenting I feel like it would make the problem worse.

It I can't downvote someone I'm more likely to comment my opinion, even if that opinion is dog-piling.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

People that dogpile downvote too, it’s not exclusionary. Downvotes on Reddit were not meant to be a „disagree” button - it was intended for off-topic and rule breaking content. Of course platform has very little control over that and people started it to bury opinions they disagreed with below visibility thresholds.

Out of all the ways to solve this I really like what Tildes does. There’s no downvote button and only somewhat trusted users get to assign labels that work a bit similarly but force you to provide a reason for that downvote. For example, a pun that doesn’t bring anything to discussion can be labelled as „noise” which doesn’t remove or hide it but brings it to bottom. Other labels serve as quasi-report. It’s a solved problem but I think most people like dogpiling and downvoting.

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

The voting on any website since the inception of the idea was intended to be a "like/dislike" counter to help guage the popularity of a post. Things that were well liked, get shown to more people. Things that are mostly disliked, don't. That's all it ever was, and it's how a majority of people continue to use it.

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

„This is how it always was” is never a good argument but it’s not even applicable in this case. It was Digg that brought downvoting to mainstream and it was definitely a Web 2.0 thing. Old forums used upvotes only, sometimes labeled as „thanks” and such.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My argument was only against the statement "it was always intended to be this way." Because, no... It wasn't. I am not saying that it should be one way or the other.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

FWIW Dog-piling also applies to upvotes. People see a headline or comment they agree with, even if it's a complete fabrication, and upvote it.

Of course as you noted not everyone agrees what an upvote or downvote represents.

As for Tildes, it does help but also requires a lot more moderation. Not that I'd be against trying it, I do just wonder how well it scales up, especially if people disagree.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

What you are talking about is a normal internet conversation.

If you don't want everyone showing up to call you dumb then don't say stupid things lol

There's a clear difference between people being mean to someone who didn't know better vs someone who is full of shit

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

Yeah like somebody throwing around the term “terf” completely out of context to protect the reputations of men instead of being concerned about femicide and radicalization of men. Like what you did.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

You dropping misandrist dogwhistles is what makes me think you're a terf.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

It's not that easy. People often LOOK for malice and give people zero grace, it's seen as an easy opportunity to white knight and get people to pile on.

It's the worst part of online conversation, because it only takes one asshole to derail everything.

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

There's a difference here. I got it for calling this quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." Copypasta.

Which it is. It's true, but It's also tired and old, and people just post that with nothing else to add. Just that. It's not even saying the quote is wrong or anything. Just that copypasta is annoying and lazy. Downvote and dog-piled for that opinion? Who would defend copypasta? Yet as of my last check, at least 92 people like just seeing that quote randomly posted over and over and over.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Yet as of my last check, at least 92 people like just seeing that quote randomly posted over and over and over.

92 people thought you pointing it out as copypasta was something worth downvoting. Maybe it was the way you said it, or that pointing it out as copypasta was a net negative for the thread if you didn't add why it being copypasta was relevant.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I’m here to get away from a normal internet conversation but with size it seems that it is inevitable.

load more comments
view more: next ›