1170
Critical support for the Lemmy world peeps in their fight against pro-intellectual property nerds (hexbear.net)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
346 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 3 years ago (5 children)

That's the whole problem. No one's posts should be affected by the opinions of others and the fact that they are incentivizes all of the problems we are facing. People are making alts, brigadeering and building botnets to get around being downvoted and that breaks the system.

Downvotes are not legitimate in any way at all except that they make people feel better and we can't build a future based on such auspices.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The main issue is this:

    Say 1,000 people are arguing over an issue with 10 different sides, on a platform where you can upvote as many comments as you want. 250 people agree with one side, and the other nine sides have no more than 150 people in agreement. In this case, the comment arguing this side would have 250 points.

    Now, in a system without downvotes, this would rise to the top. However, say all 750 other people disagree with the side and can downvote it. In this case it would have -500 points. Let's also say that the 250 people in agreement with this point also downvote all the other comments that disagree with them (in true Reddit fashion). The second most popular opinion would be sitting at -100 points. Basically, downvotes allow massively unpopular opinions to be shoved to the bottom.

    Bots and brigading are significant problems that need attention on platforms such as these, but removing downvotes isn't the answer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    That presumes downvotes represent honest disagreement, which we both know and I have proven they don't.

    Because now one asshole with 500 different alts across the fediverse can take any post he wants and massively downvote it, enforcing consequential action against opinions he doesn't like, and no one is the wiser.

    That's why we deal with the one having 250 upvotes, and give 500 upvotes to whoever disagrees with it, letting that opinion rise to the top instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Again, this is why one account per person is the most important part of this system functioning. Bots, brigading, alts, etc. all undermine the way the system should work. In fact, they undermine an upvotes-only system too, since one person with 5,000 bot accounts can make anything look popular.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Which is not possible because you can't guarantee one account per person, anyone can make as many alts as they want, specifically on other servers that can then inundate a post on a target one. That's why it's so problematic.

    In retrospect, federation itself is a terrible idea the way it's been implemented. I don't think the developers took the fact that humans are inherently evil into account.

    In fact, they undermine an upvotes-only system too, since one person with 5,000 bot accounts can make anything look popular.

    This also is true. 🤔 Allowing people to vote on other people's comments in general is so deeply problematic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent