A study that sticks in my mind is that negative comments outweigh positive comments in how they are felt by the receivers. What is perceived as balanced is a ratio of one negative comment to five positive comments. Do downvotes have the same weight as comments? IDK, but I without the feedback of comments, there isn't much to base anything on. I get attacked in droves if I comment about anything Russian. We clearly do not see events through the same lens.
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
10 points (54.6% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6305 readers
234 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I continue to advocate for emoji responses to posts. This would free votes to represent "interest value" for ranking, yet still allow for expressing agreement, disagreement, appreciation of a joke, etc, while minimizing low-value, low-effort responses meant to express the same thing. Like "This!".
Nostr does that
I think any voting system can be abused or gamed. Reddit's system created karma-whores. YouTube sucks without downvotes. I have seen game forums with emote voting systems that were abused a bit.
That being said, it would be nice to see something new on Lemmy, to distinguish it from other platforms and maybe promote engagement, something that benefits both positive and negative voting.
Should be tied to comments. If you don’t comment, you don’t get a vote either way.
But sometimes, something is just so fucking stupid it doesn't deserve that sort of engagement...
Vote comment
The fediverse need more interactions for it to work. Downvoting or upvoting isn’t creating any value.
Comments create value even if you disagree.
The fediverse need more interactions for it to work. Downvoting or upvoting isn’t creating any value.
Comments create value even if you disagree.
This point of view is like extroverts forcing introverts to talk when they don't want to.
I disagree.
Source: I have nothing of value to say.
Since finding out that that the .ml instance has a discord that they coordinate attacks from, I definitely think something like this should be Implemented.
Votes aren't even federated? Vote totals are for the instance you're viewing the post on only.
Edit : or maybe that's just reduces, or a mbin thing. Hard to keep up with the technical side of all of this.
How would this help? They probably already upvote some comments.
If each user has to upvote 2 comments for every down vote, they would be forced to actually up engagement elsewhere when attempting to brigade campaign users.
Down votes not counting unless paired with a reply could also significantly slow them down.
Just upvote a few comments that align with your position.
Aren't they already leaving comments and mass upvoting those when they are brigading? This solution does not necessarily help brigades nor any really determined people, it merely adds more friction to those who predominantly downvote at the cost of them engaging elsewhere.
Very good point.
Clearly we need a multifaceted solution, though I'm not sure what the solution is. I do believe that the .ml instance is the cause Lemmy hasn't taken off the way we had hoped, and defederation should be discussed, but I think those same users will just rebound to a different instance and destroy the community there.
In general, I think slowing them down might be a good starting point before the more nuclear options are broached though.
Putting your finger on the upvote/downvote scale in any way amounts to censoring the community's collective voice. If the intention is to create an open, impartial forum for discussion and community interaction, then no such action should be taken.
Enforcing a "positive" trend in voting might create the façade of a seemingly friendlier community, but not a genuinely friendlier one. It might also create toxic positivity.
If the intention is to create an open, impartial forum for discussion and community interaction, then no such action should be taken.
If ensuring that users can't predominantly give negative feedback violates your understanding of the intention, surely the existence of moderators does as well.
I'll just quote from my other comment:
Censorship is sometimes necessary (the classic example of yelling “fire!” in a theater) but always problematic. It should never be implemented in blanket policies but only in specific cases to drive specific outcomes (not to create a generally more positive atmosphere) - hence moderation and reporting.
And from just a moment ago:
[email protected] >The existence of moderators suggests we can’t be trusted to say anything we want.
[email protected] > The existence of moderators suggests that moderating conversation between humans requires contextual, circumstantial, individual and specific decision-making. That is, it requires human attention on each instance rather than broad conversation-affecting policies.
Fair enough lol sorry for splitting comments, I just wanted to sepererate this from the bog of my other comments. I will address that tomorrow when I'm a little more put together. I appreciate the discussion.
I don't agree with OPs idea, but this assertion really bugs me.
Putting your finger on the upvote/downvote scale in any way amounts to censoring the community’s collective voice.
This is true, but lemmy is awash with people, bots, and other bad actors doing exactly this.
It would only be a reason not to take action if the existing system were free from such interactions.
I'm not advocating manipulating votes. I just wish everyone were more aware that vote manipulation is happening and it heavily influences the general opinion of lemmy.
Do you think users that contribute downvotes more than anything add to the community interaction and help create open discussions? I personally think they inhibit that and discourage others from sharing. This is a limit that practically should not be reached by any good faith users, so I do not anticipate a net negative effect.
Do you think users that contribute downvotes more than anything add to the community interaction and help create open discussions? I personally think they inhibit that and discourage others from sharing.
It really doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, about such users, because any such opinion could only be a generalization, and therefore not a good basis for making policy decisions.
I do not anticipate a net negative effect.
I don't think you're putting enough thought into unintended consequences. Censorship is sometimes necessary (the classic example of yelling "fire!" in a theater) but always problematic. It should never be implemented in blanket policies but only in specific cases to drive specific outcomes (not to create a generally more positive atmosphere) - hence moderation and reporting.
If you were to implement a policy like this, what you are doing is saying to the entire community, "I don't trust you to express your opinions without guardrails, and so I am putting this filter on you to adjust them." It's a very parental idea, it seems motivated by a desire to control the conversation on a broad scale.
It’s a very parental idea, it seems motivated by a desire to control the conversation on a broad scale.
There's a lot of children, of all ages, on the internet.
It really doesn't matter what I think
Nice dodge. I don't think its a generalization, I think its inherently perpendicular to the goals of the platform. There is no way to objectively measure that, and only the mods have the stats to attempt to approximate it with a large margin of error and shakey axioms.
I think this is a very specific case that only effects a small but vocal subset of users. And yes, I think trolls who spam downvotes need parenting. The existence of moderators suggests we can't be trusted to say anything we want. Again, good faith users will never hit this limitation.
Have you considered the consequence of someone seeing that message and realizing they are being overly negative? It still allows unlimited downvotes, but introduces more effort only for the "downvote trolls". Even seeing a popup and acknowledging they are downvoting more than upvoting would increase the friction.
It could increase polarization due to those now required to upvote, but orients people to encourage more which engages users.
Nice dodge.
If this had been a dodge I would've just moved on without explaining why what I think doesn't matter, which I of course immediately did in the same sentence.
I don’t think its a generalization
And yet, your conclusion has no specific examples or support of any kind beyond your own impressions and feelings... so it is generalization.
I think its inherently perpendicular to the goals of the platform
Interesting. What are "the goals of the platform"?
The existence of moderators suggests we can’t be trusted to say anything we want.
The existence of moderators suggests that moderating conversation between humans requires contextual, circumstantial, individual and specific decision-making. That is, it requires human attention on each instance rather than broad conversation-affecting policies.
but orients people to encourage more which engages users.
Does it? Do you have any data to support this conclusion?
If there's one thing we've learned from social media companies, it's that nothing drives user engagement like negativity. Now understand, I'm not saying this is good or that the outrage-surfacing algorithms are something to emulate, I am only saying that your statement here isn't supported by available evidence.
And yes, I think trolls who spam downvotes need parenting.
I'm pulling this statement out of order and out of context because I want to emphasize it specifically. In my opinion lemmy is not an appropriate place for this nor are you (or anyone here) the appropriate person to try to parent other people who you have only interacted with via lemmy (unless someone directly asks you for mentoring in some way). Again, I think this reveals a desire to control the way that other people express themselves.
I was referring to the goals that you listed in the previous comment. It seems like you entire argument is that I do not have any objective data on subjective goals. And yes, the presence of moderators and community/platform rules also reveals a desire to control the way people express themselves.
This post isn't a submission for a code change, its to get the conversation started on the problem (that you refuse to acknowledge) of users who predominantly leave downvotes. Your persistence about my lack of data is goofy, just nip it in the bud and say you will only consider policy changes proposed by moderators with stats to back their proposal. This is post is supposed to be the thing that might spur someone with the data to then look into it.
It seems like you entire argument is that I do not have any objective data on subjective goals.
Actually, my argument is that the motivation to control user interaction in a broad way like you propose is inherently flawed because it comes from a desire to control people.
And yes, the presence of moderators and community/platform rules also reveals a desire to control the way people express themselves.
The difference, again, is that moderator actions are individual, specific, contextual, and limited to a specific point in time, and also logged. Removing a particular comment or banning a particular user is very different from adjusting the balance of voting wholesale. Moderation is better because it is limited and flexible to each individual situation.
its to get the conversation started on the problem (that you refuse to acknowledge) of users who predominantly leave downvotes.
No, I am not refusing to acknowledge the problem, I am saying that your proposed solution (1) won't address that problem effectively and (2) will create additional problems that (long-term) will be worse for the community. The cost/benefit doesn't work out.
I comment on your lack of data because I think your conclusions about what will or won't improve community interaction are emotional and anecdotal. And frankly, I think the track record of social media demonstrates the opposite - people engage with controversy. Enforced positivity turns people off, it kills meaningful conversation. It's like Disneyland - nice for a visit, but you wouldn't want to live there.
Blajah doesn't have downvotes, so I cannot downvote anything and also can't see when I'm down voted. I've found that this is essential to getting out of the Reddit-type mind hive because I'm a weak person who is easily swayed by the opinion of others. I finally feel free to actually speak my mind and absolutely recommend it to others.
I would have no problem if it was a setting toggle on Lemmy. But personally I like truths even if they are uncomfortable.
view more: next ›