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.
To discuss how to grow and manage communities / magazines on Lemmy, Mbin, Piefed and Sublinks
Resources:
Megathreads:
Rules:
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.
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.
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.
Definitely
Does dogpiling happen on Lemmy? I'm a refugee.
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
Sometimes, but much less compared to Reddit.
Welcome here, here are a few pointers for you
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.
Obviously the crowd wouldn't elect anyone, they just have to accept what the first person to respond says!
I got this for saying I downvote copypasta. The whole thing was ridiculous, of course I doubled down.
Being an instance with downvotes disabled sorta helps for this imo
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.
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.
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.
„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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You dropping misandrist dogwhistles is what makes me think you're a terf.
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.
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.
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.
I’m here to get away from a normal internet conversation but with size it seems that it is inevitable.