Just wish there were more transparency around counts and content engagement.

I firmly believe most influencer these day were propped up with payed views and botted engagement. Not that lemmy is the same but it all feels so dirty.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 months ago

    I firmly believe most influencer these day were propped up with payed views and botted engagement.

    How does any of that apply to Lemmy? There’s no commercial interests represented here. I’m not following anyone on Lemmy because of their amount of upvotes. I’ll occasionally look at the heavily downvoted to see if its a opposing view I should consider, but mostly I see those are just trolling/racism/misogyny.

    I like the different here over reddit for Karma. There’s no “score” and therefor no incentive for farming Karma and all the negatives that creates. We’re all equal here.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        0·
        11 months ago

        Oh? The answer requested by the OP is purely subjective. There is no right answer. Each of our answers is right for us, which is why the OP asked “Why are you personally…”.

        There is no objectively right answer here, therefore all personal opinions are valid.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          0·
          11 months ago

          your supposition that there’s no commercial interests here is incorrect. just because it hasn’t manifested yet doesn’t mean it isn’t lurking beneath the surface.

          I think the most recent “polish canadian girl” campaign was quite effective and displayed exactly what it was supposed to do.

          the NSFW lemmy instance is growing in numbers most recently due to the purge happening at Reddit. those posts are very much economic in nature.

          also, there’s strong corporatist agendas on lemmy. sure, there is plenty of political theater and grandstanding made by bots and fools alike but in reality…those can easily sway a nation.

          so yes, I’ll admit that your opinion is “valid”, but it’s also unwarranted, baseless, and circumstantial based entirely upon your own limited point of view. that’s not your fault though, it’s your opinion.

          it’s funny, opinions, everyone has one about something or someone. but really, we never stop to think, “Does anybody really care about this?”

          I sure don’t, I just wanted to extended a bit of “friendly” courtesy to point out the hypocrisy in your own words. In one breath you celebrate the freedom that comes from being unrestrained by vote count–and in the other your unabashedly chastise someone for daring to downvote your opinion and in turn sharing their opinion of your opinion.

          Don’t worry, I swear I won’t form a complex opinion of you that’s too harsh. you certainly haven’t said anything that would warrant a strong opinion anyway.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            0·
            11 months ago

            your supposition that there’s no commercial interests here is incorrect. just because it hasn’t manifested yet doesn’t mean it isn’t lurking beneath the surface

            Wait, are you agreeing with me that commercial interested doesn’t exist yet? I’m making no claims about the future of it.

            I sure don’t, I just wanted to extended a bit of “friendly” courtesy to point out the hypocrisy in your own words. In one breath you celebrate the freedom that comes from being unrestrained by vote count–and in the other your unabashedly chastise someone for daring to downvote your opinion and in turn sharing their opinion of your opinion.

            You’re framing what occurred incorrectly. The OP is calling for vote transparency, as in ownership of the upvote or downvote to the person casting it. I’m saying that the ownership of the upvote or downvote is irrelevant. I’m proving my point because I don’t care who cast the downvote on my post.

            It would be hypocrisy if I was claiming that knowing the ownership of the upvote/downvote doesn’t matter, and if I then demanded to know who downvoted me. I’m doing not such thing. I celebrate the anonymity of the downvoter. I just don’t put any stock in their downvote, which is my entire point that upvote/downvote ownership knowledge isn’t required or desired by me. Even if you disagree with my opinion, which you’re welcome to, its consistent and without hypocrisy .

            Don’t worry, I swear I won’t form a complex opinion of you that’s too harsh. you certainly haven’t said anything that would warrant a strong opinion anyway.

            I’m a rando on the internet to you. I am very glad you don’t put enough stock in anything anyone says on a random message board that would cause you any strong feelings positive or negative.

  • TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl
    0·
    11 months ago

    Just wish there were more transparency around counts and content engagement.

    Sure dude, I bet that’s the only reason.

    Imagine raging against the dude who downvoted you. That reasoning sounds more believable than “transparency”. It was “that much” you had to ask a way to know WHO is downvoting you.

    Imagine caring for who downvotes. How dare they.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    0·
    11 months ago

    Im not but actually I really wish the stuff done with trust cafe was integrated into the fediverse. Up votes and down votes are fine for general recomendations but me being able to rank users is pretty huge.

  • d00phy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    This may be overthinking things a bit but…

    I mod a desert of a sub for my alma mater, and I’m pretty sure the same person downvotes everything I post there. No comments, just a single downvote. As a mod I would love to be able to confirm my suspicions, but as a user, I like my votes to be anonymous.

    As a middle ground, perhaps the software itself could auto-mod a bit. If a single user only ever downvotes content from a community, and crosses a certain threshold, they might be soft-banned for some number of days with a note in the mod log to the effect of “negative contribution.” After some amount of time, the ban is automatically lifted. If a community mod notices that the same user keeps getting soft-banned every 30-something days (the soft-ban limit plus some amount of time for it to kick back in), they can decide if they want to ban the user.

  • hightrix@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 months ago

    Because the reason for a vote is personal and different to everyone.

    If I see a post with a title containing 20 emojis, I downvote it. Doesn’t matter the content of the post.

    Now, assume that post was about fighting for lgbt rights or fighting against anti-abortion legislation. Some moral crusader sees my downvote and immediately calls me a bigot. When, from my perspective, all I did was downvote a bunch of emojis.

    Take that idea and expand it.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      0·
      11 months ago

      This. One thing I couldn’t stand about Reddit was seeing people who have so little going on in their lives that they thought it worthwhile to “background check” other posters.

      This was a big thing with Twitter too. “Oh, they follow such-and-such in their list of 10,000 follows, who turned out to be bad in recent news, so this person’s views are worthless and they must also be bad!”

      Like, being able to have a quick glance and be like "Ah this is clearly a bot / hate-troll / what-haves, can be handy for some sense of accountability, but purity-testing and association-mobs are the stuff of cautionary science fiction, and should be avoided.

      • Kissaki@feddit.orgEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        I’ve seen it too often on Lemmy too.

        Most are of what you describe, but not all of them. I have seen valuable background checks before (back on Reddit). I specifically remember an elaborate post about bots/botnet.

        I don’t like your dismissive qualification of “have so little going on in their lives”. Some background checks are good and important. Dismissing people who are willing to invest into that in general, but also dismissing people who “have nothing better to do” for their situation, feels like an awful, uncalled-for, inappropriate insult.

        /edit: Rewording to better get my point across.

        • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
          0·
          11 months ago

          Sorry I didn’t mean to cause any offense but maybe I can clarify too. The people I’m referring to are what’s referred to often as “terminally online.” They could be doing anything with themselves and their lives, but instead they’re choosing to deep-dive on anonymous message board posters they disagree with, so they can tear them apart or call them out for some post made years ago, or an assumed affiliation or belief, that kind of thing.

          It’s a choice to be vindictive and petty to people.

          Like, yeah you’re right, sometimes looking at post histories and such can be helpful to unmask a bot net or a troll riling up a community, but I’m referring to people doing it just to be obsessively petty and vindictive to strangers.

          But okay, in good faith I’ll add “decide they have nothing better to do” to emphasize one’s free will, because the joke is that anybody could be doing better than trying to dig up personal beef on each other over message boards when nothing is at stake lol.

  • cornshark@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 months ago

    It leads to low quality communities banning people who downvote their posts, artificially inflating their engagement metrics

  • Artyom@lemm.ee
    0·
    11 months ago

    You know what I’m really against? People asking leading questions in asklemmy.

  • Ougie@lemmy.world
    0·
    11 months ago

    I’d like to see named upvotes (if that’s already a thing, sorry I’m just a casual lurker couldn’t be bothered to find out)

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    11 months ago

    To be clear - are you asking about a breakdown of who voted which way or just a per comment/post total (i.e. +6)

  • Andrew@piefed.socialEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    If you want to read up on people’s objections, there’s load of comments at https://lemmy.world/post/18805474 and the GitHub Issue it links to at https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/4967

    I’m not personally in favour of ideas about voting privacy (I think it’s a bit anti-Fediverse and hampers backfilling), but those who disagree tend to feel more strongly about it than I do, so I try to avoid arguments about it.

  • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
    0·
    11 months ago

    I don’t love the idea that Nazis can lookup that I voted against their propaganda when it appears here.