this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
152 points (95.8% liked)

Fediverse

38881 readers
705 users here now

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

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

By advantage I mean posts from those instances receiving more visibility than others on feeds that sort by score (active, hot, top).

There seems to be at least two ways in which posts from instances that don't allow downvotes receive an advantage:

  • They don't federate downvotes. That means other instances only count downvotes from their own users but not from the rest of the fediverse.
  • A downvote sometimes can be counted and federated as an upvote. This happens when you first upvote a post and then change it to a downvote.

Let's see an example. Suppose we are a user from instance A that allows downvotes and we want to vote a post on instance B that doesn't allow downvotes. Watch what happens on instance C that also allows downvotes.

  1. Before the vote this is what users from each instance see (upvote - downvote = total score)
    A: 10 - 0 = 10
    B: 10 - 0 = 10
    C: 10 - 0 = 10

  2. Now we upvote the post:
    A: 11 - 0 = 11
    B: 11 - 0 = 11
    C: 11 - 0 = 11

  3. We misclicked, we meant to downvote the post:
    A: 10 - 1 = 9
    B: 11 - 0 = 11
    C: 11 - 0 = 11

If the post was hosted on an instance that allowed downvotes users from instance C would see a total score of 9.

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thecam@lemmy.world 127 points 2 years ago (4 children)

It does. I will never use an instance without downvotes. Nobody liked it when youtube downvotes were hidden.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think there should be an option (unless there is) for mods to turn off (or hide) voting as needed. That might be an effective way to cancel any downvote brigades. Lemmy really doesn't have the population for mass vote manipulation now, but it will soon enough.

Hiding all votes can also help mitigate some superficial bias, but not all. I believe that if a person sees a comment with a few dozen downvotes first, they tend not to read the post objectively. After being on Reddit for such a long time (12 years or so), I found that it was super easy to manipulate voting trends if I caught a post or comment at just the right time.

Hiding only downvotes is just silly though. Some register of public opinion, positive or negative, still has its uses, IMHO.

[–] thecam@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

I dont see any issue with the user choosing weather upvotes or downvotes are visible or not. Not in favor of moderators or admins having a choice on this matter.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 12 points 2 years ago

I left lemmy.one because of this.

[–] Boinketh@lemm.ee 48 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It seems odd to me that we would federate with instances lacking such basic functionality. Not allowing their users to downvote is one thing, but if they don't recognize downvotes from other instances, that sort of ruins the whole upvote/downvote dynamic for everyone.

[–] LedgeDrop@lemm.ee 38 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I was on Beehaw and they block downvotes. I didn't think much of it until I went to a federated channel with low participation (it was a new channel) and I wanted to downvote some bot-spam... but couldn't cause Beehaw didn't allow it.

I understand (but don't agree with) the site operators intention, but their rational breaks down if you view the fediverse as something more than the single instance you're registered with.

Fortunately, it's easy to "vote with your feet".

[–] Boinketh@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If I understand the rules correctly, the problem is that voting with your feet doesn't work because trolls can use no-downvote instances to do some major trolling.

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

If it becomes a big enough problem, other instances can de-federate with problematic instances. I don't like de-federation, but I also don't like disabling downvotes.

[–] shotgun_crab@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Wait, so disallowing downvotes means you can't downvote posts from any federated instance or did I get it wrong? That's kinda weird...

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Users who can't handle downvotes on their own instance clearly can't be trusted with downvotes elsewhere.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

their rational breaks down if you view the fediverse as something more than the single instance you’re registered with.

How so?

[–] LedgeDrop@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well Beehaw's rational is explained in this thread.

The reason I wanted to downvote was because Reddit communities like GameDeals is one of the new equalization I cannot easily find on Lemmy.

Thus, I found !gamedeals@lemmit.online / https://lemmit.online/c/gamedeals. It uses a bot to scrape the content from Reddit, but the scoring and popularity is missing.

When I joined there were only 13 people subscribed (now it's 150+). If I'm limited to upvotes, it was difficult to "vote for the threads I liked" vs "vote for the shovelware" that appears in that channel.

With downvote, I was able to downvote shovelware and upvote threads I thought others would be interested. Everything else would be left as neutral.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't really see how those two issues relate to each other though? You said beehaw's rationalisation breaks down once you consider federation, but the problem you're describing doesn't really relate to federation. It also doesn't really seem like much of a problem to me either to be honest. Yeah, it changes the dynamics of a group, but the good stuff will still get more upvotes than the crap. It's not quite as granular as you would like, but it doesn't fundamentally break the group or anything.

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Anyone on any other instance could reply with the word "downvote" and it would have the same effect. Users on the same instance could do that too, but typically people who join such instances agree with its sentiment.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I have a very controversal piece of software for managing Lemmy that I posted about. It's mainly for personal instances to sync defederated lists from larger entities. I.E. I want to own my account (or small group), and while I would use this larger site, I will use my own to spread the load, but trust the admins' judgment.

If it weren't for down votes, from the post listing page users would think it was a huge hit, and not realize there is a healthy debate about how to use it, why, and when.

[–] pe1uca@lemmy.pe1uca.dev 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

IIRC the removal of the upvote is also federated.
When you change it to a downvote you first need to remove the upvote, that's why it changed from 11 to 9.
So, in instances B and C you'll end up with 10 score.

[–] ram@feddit.nl 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yes, but if you then downvoted the post it would still show a score of 10 in B and C instead of 9. This is the first of the two advantages I described. Even worse, if the post received 2 downvotes from ten different instances it would still show a score of 10 or 8 instead of -10.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Voting doesn't seem to affect visibility very much.

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago

It depends how you sort. I'm currently browsing "Top 6 hour" and it's numerically sorted by number of votes

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Technically, yes. But you seem to have missed the point of a social network. (Too absorbed by the commercial ones?)

If it mattered at all, the platform would be worthless. There is nothing stopping an instance from just lying about those numbers anyway.

[–] LastSprinkles@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Outright lying about the numbers is very different from just not allowing downvotes though.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Yes. We should get rid of upvotes too to make it fair.