This Community is intended for posts about the Lemmy.world server by the admins.
For support with issues at Lemmy.world, go to the Lemmy.world Support community.
Any support requests are best sent to [email protected] e-mail.
If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.
If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us
Do not engage in content manipulation such as posting spam content, vote manipulation through using several user accounts or consistently down-voting a user. Vote for the content, not for the person.
I think all of the different front ends that exist for Lemmy should also take the approach that they don't display up/downvote buttons on user pages. Is there any way to make this a by-default thing for old.lemmy, etc?
Vote manipulation will be tricky to enforce, since votes can come from any Instance due to the whole federation thing, if the user uses the same username on their account it's easy but if not it can be very difficult if not impossible.
"vote manipulation" is not a real thing on the internet. Nobody is being elected to a position of power. Ergo the conditions required for the word to apply do not exist. The reason is not there. Having your post at the top of a web page for an hour is not equivalent to four years of direct influence upon policy.
Concluding that a couple extra updoots on a post merits deletion of someone's identity is more obviously bad behaviour than the problem it attempts to address, which is no problem at all.
Why are we copycatting the place everyone is trying to get away from?
This is a weird take. You're strawmanning hard here. Who was attempting to equate real life election fraud and vote manipulation? Completely separate things.
Also, vote manipulation is bad and should be avoided where possible. It undermines the purpose of voting, which is to allow users to determine what good content is. If vote manipulation is allowed, someone could decide that their content is good all on their own.
Friend, we've imported a term from democracy to strawman with. You're familiar with the concept, therefore surely you can see that! The strawman IS the term from democracy, imported to lend significance to an insignificant act nobody actually does. YOU just used the strawman. If we gave the thing its own name it would not have the weight it seems to have now. Bots are a different problem, no real human does this thing by hand to any impactful degree. IT IS NOT A REAL THING and if anybody actually did it it would be pathetic, but certainly not a crime worthy of punishment.
Again, why import the failed model's rules? It's a made up problem, borrowing a name from a sphere of actual significance, to lend it credence so as to be a dick to people.
Just fuck off with all that noise, you know? (Not you personally.) The crime is not important enough to merit identity theft - or, oh dear, is that term too extreme to fit the situation too?
There were literally well-respected users who did this to garner admittedly pointless influence and suffered backlash because of it. Acting like people wouldn't do this when we have seen it done is really bizarre. And your hyperbole makes it even harder to take your stance seriously.
deleted by creator
The best way to fuck a democratic process up is making votes public. No one should feel like there's a "deterrent" to voting. All that does is create incentive to reward/punish people for how they vote.
Voting is what fuels the content aggregation, too. It is a very bad idea to deter people from voting how they please because it strangles the algorithm of the data it needs to sort the content. You want people voting, a lot. That's what makes the whole thing work.
Edit: which is to say nothing of how bad it will get when people make tools that help automate retaliation for downvotes. You can potentially state an opinion in a comment and set up a bot to auto block every downvoter, then share that list publicly. You may think that sounds like a great system for weeding out hate but I promise you it's going to be far messier than that, and more importantly, this kind of retaliatory shit hurts the aggregation even more.
Since upvoting is most of what I do, I think it's great that people can see it was me who upvoted them.
I don't mind the accountability of a downvote at all. If I didn't craft a specific reply, it lets people know who to ask if they genuinely don't understand why their content was problematic.
No one should feel like thereβs a βdeterrentβ to voting.
. . . It is a very bad idea to deter people from voting
You misread. What I wrote:
deterrent against weaponizing downvotes
Voting and weaponizing downvotes are two very different things.
To be clear, I used the phrase "weaponizing downvotes" to paraphrase the intent behind the written policy I quoted in full. Here it is again:
Do not engage in content manipulation such as posting spam content, vote manipulation through using several user accounts or consistently down-voting a user. Vote for the content, not for the person.
Seems like you have a problem with the policy then, because it is requiring you to self-regulate your own voting, and to specifically NOT vote as you please, but in a way that is best for the community as a whole.
