470
It's been fun, but I don't have another migration left in me. (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/fedimemes@feddit.uk
382 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some will cheer, some will be mildly disappointed. But I'm out, I think.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 months ago (34 children)

but that really doesn’t matter because each user still only gets one vote per post or comment.

where does the policy change actually impact the user then? I guess at maximum we can't upvote more that 240 things a day (comment or post). I think that's more than the vast majority of users do per day, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago

    The point isn't about how many users are likely to hit the daily limit, the point is how having a daily limit might cause people to start rationing their votes. Instead of doling them out however they see fit, they might start thinking "hmm, but is this worth spending a vote on?"

    Overall, that can have a chilling effect on voting in general, lowering engagement and reducing the motivation to post (if you only get a handful of upvotes on each post, it might feel "dead" and seem to have no point. It's encouraging to see several dozen users like your post). And that can expand to a chilling effect on posting.

    Also, if someone has a disability or is recovering from illness or surgery then they're more likely to spend more time on here, meaning they're more likely to reach the vote quota. This disproportionally impacts them.

    Sure, 240 a day is high, but it's not unreasonable for a human to reach, and it's nowhere near "obvious bot" territory.

    Based on the charts rimu shared, there are so few users who actually reach "obvious bot" territory that it's impossible for them to not highlight themselves, and they should be easy enough to handle on a case-by-case basis. We're talking less than 10 accounts. Admins can look at each one to examine their activity, and if they're a bot they can remove the account.

    There's no reason to limit people's votes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (32 children)

    i guess it's an anti-botting measure where they can't distinguish a power user from an automated system?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    There are so few accounts that have that much activity on them that admins could easily handle them on a case-by-case basis.

    This doesn't get rid of the bot accounts, it only limits their voting activity like everyone elses, which will make them harder to detect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (29 children)

    I get that whilst also dancing on the idea that perhaps a power user shouldn't post so much? This is decentralized social media, there really shouldn't be an aim to maximise here: You post, you like, you don't like.

    If the aim is to farm engagement and thus a "power user" is born, then I suspect their motives or at least implore them to touch grass more often.

    I'm making a lot of judgements here, and probably deserve any downvotes I get here - but if your posting habits are indistinguishable from a bot, then question your posting habits

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (25 children)

    Farming engagement has no incentive. It can't be monetized here, there's no karma. There would be no point.

    Power users on the fediverse aren't doing it for personal gain, they're doing it to enrich the fediverse and make it a more attractive alternative to corporate social media.

    We see so many complaints that it's dead here, or there aren't enough communities, or it's hard to find the right community for something, or if the community exists it might be dead. That's a lot of people's rationale for not switching from reddit.

    Power users here are trying to fix that. It's an enormous task and more than a single user or a handful of users can do, but they're doing their part and in many cases carrying more than their share of the burden. This change is kind of a slap in the face to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (24 children)

    Farming engagement has no incentive.

    I'm not so sure as I recall a power user on Reddit who consistently hit the front page as he figured out how to engage users (best times to post, which topics, phrasing, secondary accounts for initial boost). I forget his name, but he effectively was researching how to grab attention and then I think even went to marketing firms with his research on his viral methods.

    At the time I recall people saying to me "it's just karma, it has no value" but attention was the value, and attention is something that companies can and will pay money for. Lemmy is not necesarily immune to this gamification of content

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (23 children)

    Reddit is different for multiple reasons.

    It has karma, the fediverse doesn't.

    It has millions of daily users, the fediverse doesn't.

    It's a publicly traded company with a profit motive, the fediverse isn't.

    It allows paid advertisements, the fediverse doesn't.

    There's therefore a monetary incentive to farming karma on reddit, there isn't on the fediverse.

    Some people farm karma on reddit accounts just to sell them to advertisers or propagandists. This wouldn't work on the fediverse for the above reasons, and because there's no market for it for the same reasons.

    Reddit feeds are governed by closed-source algorithms designed by a centralized company, fediverse feeds are not.

    And lastly, you said yourself that the guy used secondary accounts to boost himself. This is voting abuse and should be dealt with whenever it can be positively identified.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (22 children)

    Reddit wasn't initially different though is my point -- it wasn't publicly traded, it had trickles of users initially, and didn't have adverts. Hell, it popularized the canary reporting as part of its yearly ethics report.

    Some feddit instances are more popular than others, and once they gain traction amongst the masses, might be rife for viral media targeting. Yes, the defederated architecture in theory prevents against that, but if one server swallows up all the users by offering something the others can't, then that somewhat easy balance between instances might get upset

    Who knows what the future holds, but we've seen what happened to other sites and it would be epitome of hubris to believe it couldn't happen here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    But would restricting the votes of a single user really be, in any way, a remedy to that theoretical problem? Much less restricting them now, when the issue on the Fediverse is largely not enough activity, not excessive artificial activity? And specifically targeting users that are not creating artificial activity, but simply those who are creating 'too much' activity?

    Rimu himself said that he didn't think that the top voters he was concerned with were bots or coordinated in any way. He just thought they were voting too much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (19 children)

    I'd argue that activity from a single user to overcome the sleepy shortcomings of other users just sways the fediverse overall towards that single user's preferences and beliefs. This might give a false idea of what the fediverse is actually about, as the silent majority are somewhat out-shouted by a vocal minority.

    Yes it's stimulating and interesting, but I wouldn't describe it as balanced. I don't know what Rimu's motives are, but they do seem fairer w.r.t to the more silent users, even if those users may never post

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    Is your point seriously that the people who aren't active don't influence the the fediverse as much as people who are?

    That's really weird, and if you just think about that for a minute you should see why that's weird.

    Like, imagine there's an election and the board of elections was suddenly like "welp, according to this chart, a lot of registered voters don't regularly vote, so it's unfair to let some voters who vote in every election have a disproportionate impact on the election results. Therefore, we're canceling voting."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    if a minority of 40% can dictate an election outcome over the remaining 60%, some of whom didn't vote - that's not democracy, that's First-Past-The-Post, and I don't need to bring up british politics to explain why that doesn't work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    You don't have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.

    But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That's a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    Braindead right-wingers consistently vote to deregulate markets and industries they deem to be unfair, just to them, often against their own interests. I'm advocating for regulation for all. Perhaps a sanity check on your own perceived political beliefs might end this discussion

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Yes, you're totally right, as long as we restrict everyone's voting rights, then it'll be fair! /s

    You're advocating for stupid and unnecessary regulations simply because you think you won't personally be affected by it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    I welcome any invitation to touch grass. I encourage you to do the same, and perhaps look up the definition of equitable

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    This has nothing to do with equity, you dunce. Voting on the fediverse is not a limited resource. Everyone can do it as much or as little as they want. Until now, when there's an arbitrary limit for no reason.

    And if you think the fact that some people don't vote in elections is sufficient justification for taking voting rights away from everyone, then you're frankly an idiot. If that's what you mean by equitable, then that word is functionally meaningless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The silent majority is made up of more than just the lurkers, and I think you know that despite leaning on it and needless personal attacks to drive your argument

    I am curious though now: Attention is a limited resource, you have bots and even some users dominating that resource. How would you go about making it fairer?

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

    "Attention is a limited resource"

    What units do you measure that in? Minutes/hours? Everyone has the same amount of it each day, and everyone rations their own attention however they see fit. One person spending hours on the fediverse and upvoting hundreds of posts isn't taking anything away from someone who spends minutes on it and upvotes a dozen.

    Whatever you mean by "silent majority", it doesn't matter. You're missing the point that nothing is being taken away from them when someone else votes more than they do.

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

    Let's go with minutes per session, and let's go with majority of users interacting with their front page which is their first point of entry and is set to "Hot". You're certain that one person spending hours upvoting hundreds of posts won't skew what other users see in their browsing period? You're sure that their attention isn't now being diverted elsewhere?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Yes, because that user can still only vote on each post one time. It doesn't skew anything. Either way, for a post to get 100+ upvotes, it requires 100+ users to upvote it, so nothing is going to reach the all feed unless a significant number of users vote on it, and no one single user has a disproportionate impact on that even if they vote on hundreds or thousands of posts.

    It's like voting down the ballot when some people only vote for president and governor. It's perfectly fair; they had the same opportunity you did and chose to only vote on two spots. You didn't get an extra vote to cast on any given seat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Man, you comment far more than the average user, much less the 'silent majority'. The average user doesn't upvote much; they comment even less. Would it be 'fairer' for your comments to be limited? After all, you're a 'vocal minority' whose activity is swaying the Fediverse. Wouldn't it be 'fairer' if you participated less, regardless of the fact that your participation does not actually consume (meaningfully) limited resources or space?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Personally, I comment far more than I vote and I tend to agree with Rimu that a comment is far more engaging than a vote is. Still, I like receiving as many votes as I can when I do comment or post.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    In general, I agree that a comment usually means more than a vote.

    But that's not really the question here - the question here is whether restricting voting because some people vote 'too much' is in any way a reasonable point of view for an instance on the Threadiverse. As Rimu himself pointed out, the primary targets of this are ten 'top' voters, who are hardly going to be placing more comments to 'replace' their lost votes.

    Assuming, of course, comments aren't next to be limited, since that's also an 'outsized influence' from a 'small minority'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Yeah, at best you could frame this as an experiment in trying to keep things small. The conflicting reasoning given makes me think there wasn’t a terrible amount of forethought to this decision and perhaps it was guided more by a strong hunch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children)

    There are levels to it, I agree -- and your infamy outbounds my near non-existence, as does mine to those who merely lurk -- but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it. I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.

    Edit: Just to say - I greatly value the historical topics you post and the detail you go to in your posts. I feel like the quality of your posts can still happily thrive, even if the quantity is less than what you'd prefer

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it.

    Again, your commenting far outstrips that of a semi-active user. Perhaps you should be advocating for a comment limit based on the average user as well.

    You should probably advocate for a post limit based on the average poster too. Wouldn't want it to be unfair, after all. And posts are MUCH more visible than votes or comments.

    I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.

    It was geared towards the muzzling of ten 'top' users (10, mind you, is some ~2% of the daily users of Piefed.social to begin with), but under the presumption that their votes are evenly spread out, day-by-day.

    In reality, most people aren't on the Fediverse every day - they come in, participate in a discussion or three, and then might not be back for a few days. So it's easy to hit the limit, as it is a daily limit, simply by being active in a discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Whilst I sense the sarcasm of your tone, I do largely agree that post and comment caps would likely dampen the effect of overactive subs (filtering out political posts by curating my subscriptions is a chore...)

    I do agree that a daily limit might be too much, as activity does seem to be sporadic as you say. A weekly limit could work though.

    Anyway, to get to the crux of it: I'd be sad if you leave, but not sad if you posted a little less

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago

    Whilst I sense the sarcasm of your tone, I do largely agree that post and comment caps would likely dampen the effect of overactive subs (filtering out political posts by curating my subscriptions is a chore…)

    ... most of those political posts aren't done by the same people. They're 'overactive' because many Fediverse users are heavily political. So limiting the number of individual user posts or comments would do jack shit for that.

    Anyway, to get to the crux of it: I’d be sad if you leave, but not sad if you posted a little less

    Sorry that I want to participate in a community on my own terms. You won't have to worry about that frightening level of autonomy from me on here anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 9 points 2 months ago*

    That's the thing - Rimu openly admits that he doesn't think that the power voters are bots. The issue isn't distinguishing us. It's just that Rimu doesn't like so many votes being cast by so few users. Shit man, if I encounter two active discussions in a day (admittedly not a daily occurrence on the sometimes-sleepy Fediverse), I'll be close to hitting the 240 limit simply by having an opinion on the majority of comments.

    Shit, my vote quota is half-used-up today just from this comment section. I haven't even posted or browsed anything else.

    As someone with a laundry list of physical and mental ailments, my 'touching grass' time is extremely limit, and general I reserve the monumental effort there for important issues - like keeping up with the social events of my actual friends, or participating in local politics in my increasingly-fucked-and-fascist country. "Touch grass, it's more fun than shitposting about history!" doesn't really apply for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    All social media pretty much operates on a 90/9/1 division. Only 1% of users actively post. Only a fraction of that 1% are power users like PugJesus. Killing power users won't accomplish a different division of labour where more people post, it will only accomplish killing the ecosystem as a whole.

    You thought the Fediverse was dead now? Wait until the power users disappear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    This is what I'm saying. Posting/voting isn't a limited resource that can be distributed unfairly. People do it or don't do it as much or as little as they want. Why restrict that on an ecosystem that you want to grow?

    If the issue is compute, or resources to run the compute, or admins to maintain the compute environments, then focusing on those issues would be better. Ask for donations to add a new server, encourage people who can to set up their own servers to distribute the load, request that more people play an active role as admins. But restricting engagement/activity of your users sounds like the beginning of the end of your ecosystem...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent