this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
111 points (91.1% liked)

Fediverse

28396 readers
327 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

tl;dr: Be excellent to each other, do something constructive here?

I'm not sure anymore where the Threadiverse is headed. (The Threadiverse being this threaded part of the Fediverse, i.e. Lemmy, MBin, PieFed, ...)
In my time here, I've met a lot of nice people and had meaningful conversations and learned lots of things. At the same time, it's always been a mixed bag. We've always had quite some argumentative people here, trolls, ... I've seen people hate on and yell at each other, and do all kinds of destructive things. My issue with that is: Negative behavior is disproportionately affecting the atmosphere. And I'd argue we have nowhere enough nice behavior to even that out.

I don't see Lemmy grow for quite some time now. Seems it's now leveling off at a bit less that 50k monthly active users. And I don't see how that'd change. I'm missing some clear vision/idea of where we want to be headed. And I miss an atmosphere that makes people want to join or stay here, of all of the places on the internet. The saying is: "If you don't go forwards you go backwards". I'm not sure if this applies... At least we're not shrinking anymore.

And I'm always unsure if the tone and atmosphere here changes subtly and gradually. I've always disagreed with a few dynamics here. But lately it feels like we're on the decline, at least to me. I occasionally keep an eye on the votes on my comments. And seems I'm getting fewer of them. Sometimes I reply to a post and not a single person interacts. Even OP seems to have abandoned their post moments after writing it. And also for nuanced and longer replies, I regularly don't get more than one or two upvotes. I think that used to be a bit better at some point. And I see the same thing happening with other peoples' comments. So it's not just me writing low-quality comments. What does work is stating simple truths. I regularly get some incoming votes with those. But my vision of this place isn't spreading simple truths, but have proper and meaningful discussions, learn things and new perspectives or just mingle with people or talk. But judging by the votes I observe, that isn't appreciated by the community here.

Another pet peeve of mine is the link aggregator aspect of Lemmy. I'd say at least 80% of Lemmy is about dumping some political (or tech) news articles. Lots of them don't generate any engagement. Lots of them are really low-effort. OP just dumps something somewhere, no body text added, no info about what's interesting about it. And people don't even read those articles. They just read the title and react (emotionally) to that. In the end probably neither OP nor the audience read the article and it's just littering the place. Burying and diminishing other, meaningful content. (With that said: There are also nice (news) discussions going on at the same time. And Lemmy is meant to be a link aggregator. It's just that my perception is: it's skewed towards low quality, low engagement and random noise.)

A few people here also don't really like political debate. And there's no escape from it here on Lemmy since so much revolves around that. And nowadays politics is about strong opinions, emotions and emotional reactions. And often limited to that. The dynamics of Lemmy reinforce the negative aspect of that, because the time when you're most incentivized to reply or react is, when it triggers some strong emotion in you, for example you strongly disagree with a comment and that makes you want to counter it and write your own opinion underneath. If you agree, you don't feel a strong emotion and you don't reply. And the majority of users seems to also forget to upvote in that case, as I lined out earlier. And we also don't write nuanced answers, dissect complex things and examine it from all angles. That's just effort and it's not as rewarding for the brain to do that as it is pointing out that someone is wrong. So it just fosters an atmosphere of being argumentative.

Prospect

I think we have several ways of steering the community:

  1. Technology: Features in the software, design choices that foster good behavior.
  2. Moderation: Give toxic people the boot, or delete content that drags down the place. Following: What remains is nice people and not adverse content.
  3. The community

I'd say 1 and 2 go without saying. (Not that everything is perfect with those...) But it really boils down to 3: The community. This is a fairly participatory place. We are the ones shaping the tone and atmosphere. And it's our place. It's kind of our obligation to care for it if we want to see it go somewhere. Isn't it?

So what's your vision of this place? Do you have some idea on where you'd like it to go? Practical ideas on how to achieve it?
Do you even agree with my perception of the dynamics here, and the implications and conclusions I came up with?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Points that could improve the 1. point "Technology":

  • Make it possible to follow single users. Often I see some high quality content by users posted on communities to get drowned out by low effort posts ... Though on average high quality users post to high quality communities. Make it possible to follow/subscribe to a single user, making this place more like twitter without the character limit. A similar point about singular users carrying Lemmys usefulness on the back was made by [email protected]
  • Introduce hashtags, to make it simpler to follow/ search interests. At the moment I do not see the niche communities I see on reddit thrive but broad categories that are hard to break up: Technology, Politics. While on reddit you would see multiple large active communities/bubbles related to politics with widely differing ideologies. This may be fixed by time and scale though...
  • Since every user is tainted by the server they log in to, it is easy to assume the ideology because he joined server lemmy.X .... make a way to hide that information, idk if that is technically compatible with lemmys design though ....
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would question your focus on growth. Yes, we all want this place to succeed. But do we really want this unlimited growth like Facebook, Reddit and all those other companies? Small communities are great, they give you a connection between users, they spark friendships and great discourse. Those are great. Yes, they are smaller than those multimillion user subreddits, but we've all seen those big subreddits slowly burning down. Dying to bots, to marketing spam, to low effort, popular comments, to reposts, to karma farming, to US politics. We've seen subreddit after subreddit dying to moderator burnout - because big subs are really hard to moderate, people will burn out. They are sacrificing their free time to deal with trolls, shills, putins guys and receive no compensation for that.

So maybe ... let's don't replicate Reddit? Let's focus on creating small, helpful communities and people will come.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I agree. I must admit my title was a bit clickbaity. Growth - meaning growing in user count - wasn't my intention. I think it'll be a result, sure. But I agree with you (and the Lemmy developers) in that growing (above all) isn't what Lemmy is about. And it's not healty anyways. And I think I didn't include any reasoning or suggestions in my text that'd propose doing it.

What we'd need is the communities be at a healty (and useful) engagement level to allow having a conversation in the first place. Well, and I occasionally keep an eye at such metrics, because for example seeing something stagnate or decline could mean there is an issue, somewhere. I think I mentioned that in the post. But it doesn't necessarily mean we have to push that metric. It's tackling the underlying issue (if there's any) that's the important thing to do (in my opinion).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think the timing is quite right.

I don't really have anything meaningful to contribute to the feeds and most of the discussions are a bit pointless. They're not really changing anything. So, in part those other platforms are fueled by outrage culture. Which I know is bad, so not having it is good, but then we also don't have the growth from it.

The technology is there and that should help. Apparently people aren't going to mass migrate from reddit quite yet, even though the push last year probably helped a lot.

It is a network problem. I think the slow growth will / should happen eventually, because the fediverse is an objectively good place to start a community. It's just not going to be fast and other platforms adding push factors would help obviously. We'll see where reddit goes with their paid subs.

I don't think the low effort posts are a problem, there is hardly motivation to interact with an empty page and there is slightly more if there are "boring topics". At least it's a place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think we have to actively provide something to the people to attract them. Something better than other platforms so they'll want to be here. Not just because the other places become worse and this is the only alternative... But both is part of the equation.

I don't think the timing is quite right.

What makes you think that? Because I think it's a good time now, but I'd like to hear different perspectives.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the timing isn't quite right, because the other social media places aren't figuratively totally on fire.

There isn't "the great social media collapse of 20XX" happening, because of some security issue or servers being super expensive or ads being actually 99% of the content. The forces that be are managing things well enough that things aren't collapsing right now.

There is no single actually big celebrity that has picked a fediverse platform as the place to be, follow and discuss news.

And there is no killer feature that you can only get here.

The bonfire is stacked nicely, but there is no spark. For now. That could change at any moment, but it could also take a while.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Fair enough. From the other perspective, I think it's a good thing. When the Reddit API thing happened, people were complaining, too. And focused to hold things together. So there wasn't any time to purpusefully take a step back and guide things. Everyone was busy with admin stuff. That makes me believe when a wave hits us, also isn't a good time to actively shape this place.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Sorry, the best I can do is passive aggressiveness and righteous indignation

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

I'm not 100% sure, maybe someone can correct me but the fediverse and Threadiverse, unlike Reddit, don't show up in search results. Nowadays when you Google something you get to see Reddit posts and comments talking about your issue which generates traffic for Reddit and also makes users sign up for an account and contribute.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't have time to respond everything, but just about the growth part: Before the Reddit blackout happened, Lemmy was stuck with around 1000 monthly users for at least a year. It was quite boring compared to now, in 15 or 30 minutes you could read all new posts and comments for a day. It was also easy to recognize the handful of regular posters (cheers). At that time you could easily think the same, that Lemmy will never grow and people will leave. But then the Reddit migration happened and we got completely overwhelmed with a 70x increase in active users.

It seems to me that growth on the internet always happens with short spurts and long quiet periods. There will probably be a time when people come to Lemmy again and we reach hundreds of thousands or millions of active users. Then we will fondly remember the time when it was so small.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

poVoq and anon6789 pointed out similar things with the growth happening in waves. I'm not sure if it's healthy, though. It puts additional strain on the platform, devs and mods and everyone. And there are (long) dry spells in between. I'd rather have it grow constantly and slowly. And I believe quite some other Free Software projects do. It's a bit of a different story with social media platforms as we have some unique circumstances like the network effect...

And I think the correct way to do it is to provide something to the people, so they want to join. Idk... be useful to them, a delight to spend time here. And offer something distinct or unique. That'd make the platform attractive all around the year. If we don't have a superior product, we just rely on the other platforms becoming worse and that's where our new users come from. Kind of accepting the role to be (and stay) an inferior Reddit clone. But that's not how I see Lemmy or the Fediverse. I want to attract people who've never used Reddit before. Tech enthusiasts, ... join because it's a great platform to discuss their matters. Linux forums switch to Lemmy because it offers them interoperability. And sure, also Reddit users. But not just because they're pushed out, but because they're positively motivated to join this place.

The software is one thing. I think we've come a long way and both Lemmy and the network feel pretty stable now. It's part of the equation. But I think the thing that really makes a difference is the community and the atmosphere. That's why people would want to join. I've started this discussion now, because i think after the Reddit exodus, things had to settle down for a bit. And as other people pointed out it seems we've reached a plateau now. I think that's a comfortable position to take a step back and think about the way forward. I'd like to take this as an opportunity to not just wait for incoming waves shape us, but now decide where we want to go and actively steer in that direction.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I think Lemmy is attractive enough, but that only matters when people actually want to join something new. Thats currently not the case, so for better or for worse we have to wait for another wave.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (4 children)

When I first joined Lemmy, I made a really big effort to make my interactions more positive than they were on Reddit. But the problem is that this required effort, and I am afraid over time my resolve might have eroded as the fediverse became just another online space instead of something new and distinct. This is a good reminder, but I wonder if this solution of just trying to be better is really sustainable for me or others? I’ll keep trying but we may need a more concrete change to get where we want to go.

I am curious if it’s time to evolve user engagement beyond up and downvotes. While they were relatively innovative at the time they were introduced, it’s been some years and we’re still here using the same system.

The biggest problem with voting as content curation is that people vote to communicate very different ideas and reactions in different circumstances. So people are sending the same signal to a well-researched, respectful but dissident perspective and to content that is rude, violent, hateful, incorrect etc.

This could be solved by allowing more diverse reactions. People will always want an agree or disagree button, so give them that. But we could also vote on how factual a post is, how polite a post is, how uplifting a post is, etc. We could then build algorithms that prioritize quality content instead of just the current popularity contest. Ideally I’d like multiple transparent algorithms that the user can choose from (or leave a default chosen by their instance) so that users can choose what kind of content is most valuable to them.

One concern is whether this would be too complicated for people to understand or engage with properly. I’d be curious to hear what others think: would this just devolve into upvotes and downvotes again or could this be a better system?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

[...] as the fediverse became just another online space instead of something new and distinct

You're hitting the nail on the head with saying that. I mean the Fediverse is what it is. But I envision it to be something distinct, with added value and not just an average online space. If i didn't care, I could just use Facebook/Reddit/Discord. But I do and I'd like this to be the nice alternative to that. Maybe way smaller and with its own problems, but at least more friendly and enjoyable....

With the emoji reactions: I agree with what nutomic pointed out. It'd also be difficult for the users to understand and use properly. And it's a bit vague how that translates to a simple score for the ranking. I don't think there is any technological issue, though. And we have platforms that use emoji reactions successfully. Notably Github and Discord. It works well for linear conversations.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Votes are needed to sort the posts and decide which ones are shown at the top of your frontpage. If we add different reaction types, it's not at all clear how each of them should affect the score. We might come up with some arbitrary numbers, but then the system will get a lot less intuitive and more complex.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, the complexity is certainly one of the downsides to what I’m proposing, which is one reason why I was curious if people thought the complexity would be manageable. Sounds like you think not?

Just to clarify, my thought is to leave this up to users/admins to choose their own algorithm, which would transparently describe how things are weighted. For me, I would like to weigh factual information most highly, then kindness, with raw popularity at the bottom. But others might feel differently, especially if there were even more types of reactions than the three main categories I described.

For new users or those who don’t understand the system, it would be fine to have a default sort, maybe configurable by your instance. It could be as simple as just adding up the positive and negative votes, which would make it identical to the current system, or we could just guess at some different weights. Let me people try them out—not everyone will engage but I hope enough would to help iron out the wrinkles and see what works best.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I could certainly see a feature like this implemented as a plugin. But it would need someone to volunteer for the programming work.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Not a bad idea. I lack the skills myself but if anyone is interested in such a thing, let me know. I’d be happy to support in any way I can.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

I don't think there's a big problem by using upvotes, downvotes and comments as systems that can show the popularity or controversy of a post.

Imo the bigger problem is in the comments using the same voting system. For starters, everyone the system in a different way. Most notably example is downvoting to disagree.

Secondly, because we are evolutionary wired to try and fit in, you either consciously or subconsciously try to create a comment that will give you the best chances at seeing the numbers go up and receive validation from your peers.

Personally I think the system is fine to keep running under the hood to keep the sorting algorithms available and maybe for moderation purposes, but it would be great if we wouldn't be able to see them at all as to not be influenced by the connections we make between votes and post content.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

One concern is whether this would be too complicated for people to understand or engage with properly.

Grandmas nowadays already spam emoji conversations happily. I wouldn't be any worried that this system looks "complicated". Did we forget that we were once children who loved to tinker with things, be they the concrete such as the bathroom lock or the abstract such as mom's rules on if we can keep a pet?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Interesting that you say that, because I was imagining that each type of vote could be represented by a different emoji. I think people would get it if we picked the right ones. But care would be needed to avoid those that could have multiple meanings.

Maybe something like this:

Agree - 👍

Disagree - 👎

Friendly/kind (not sure the best word) - 🫂

Hostile/rude - 🤬

Factual or insightful -💡

Incorrect - ❌

You could add others but those seem like the most common and useful signals I would want to send while voting.

Another idea would be to just open it up and let people use any emoji to react. Some platforms already do this but it can get more confusing in terms of how to interpret and incorporate all of that information into ranking algorithms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Another idea would be to just open it up and let people use any emoji to react.

Please no! XD We already have enough emoji as it is, not to mention they are comboable in non-portable ways or they change meaning according to the provider / renderer (GUN becoming WATER GUN is a good example).

But I do think there are valid "reaction sets" that could be interpreted with emoji, and pretty much all of them happen to match the examples you have provided:

Positive reaction / Upvote ; Negative reaction / Downvote.

Reaction of commiseration / offer of emotional support / "Hug" or w/e.

Reaction of joining in activity / offer of technical or factual support / "Let's do this".

Fun; Unfun

Reaction of surprise / "TIL" / "wow".

Factually correct ; Factually incorrect.

Reaction of "same", "this tbh", "mood" or other such neologisms

Ofc I prefer the reactions are biased towards promoting good interaction; I really don't see much use for reactions like "hostile / rude", "faggot", "kys" or stuff like that. Downvote and, depending on the case, Factually Incorrect and Unfun deal with most of that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The reason I included the negative reactions is to help distinguish between unpopular but constructive content, which I believe is very valuable in disrupting the echo-chamber effect, and content that is actually just bad, rude, insulting etc. and not contributing to anything.

Often, when there are guidelines on how to vote in platforms or communities they instruct people not to downvote for mere disagreement but people do it anyway. So by separating the disagree downvote from the “this is just objectively bad” vote, I think this can help curate a more positive environment. The goal is that if a comment or post is getting more than a few of those reactions, it should be hidden or maybe even flagged for moderation. But posts that are merely unpopular can stay as long as they are factual and polite.

load more comments
view more: next ›