RIght now lemmy doesn’t calculate or display a user’s “karma”. And many think this a good thing (me included).

Interestingly, kbin does calculate karma, even for us lemmy users (you can all probably just search on kbin.social and find your karma now, +/- federation inconsistencies).

Whenever karma comes up, this fact often comes up, along with the identification of up/down voters, such that many lemmy users will probably know that they actually do have karma and can go look it up if they want to. Some lemmy apps/frontends are also reporting karma AFAIU.

So I think the question now presents itself of whether this is an issue we want users to have some control over, within the bounds of what can done over federation/AP of course.

I can imagine a system where karma is an opt-in setting of one’s profile, and a protocol is established that any platform/client that understands up/down votes ought to respect this setting and that non-compliance risks defederation.

Though lemmy/kbin obviously lean more “public internet resource” than microblogging platforms like mastodon, I think it makes sense to value user health and safety here, and this seems like a not unreasonable option to establish a norm around.

Thoughts?

    • maegul (he/they)OPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      So I’ve responded to some of your points below.

      Overall, I have large difficulties with your reply, largely because, I’m sorry to say, I don’t think you understand my proposal and come from a position I’d describe as “tech absolutism” that emphasises technology as the only viable solution and enforces the notion that we all need to accept the limitations of the technology to the point of discounting any value in any other kind of solution. Managing a social media ecosystem is not writing a program. Given your membership on programming.dev, it’s reasonable to conclude that this bias is informed somewhat by what you know and are experienced with, and, equally, what you don’t know and are not experienced with.

      In short, I’m not sure you’ve made a single argument against proposal. And, as harsh as this is, until you reply in such a way that makes it clear that you actually understand the proposal and how it would work, I’m unlikely to engage in this discussion.

      This is a Lemmy problem - not a fediverse problem.

      No. What instances and platforms chose to do with each other’s information is a federation problem. The technical capabilities and limitations of what agreements can or cannot be established by the protocol right now are not the end of the evolution of this technology. Engaging in what federation means at a cultural level is absolutely relevant to evolving the technology and practice. This sort of thing will almost always be a federation problem.

      Other platforms on the fediverse use a like or dislike to mean different things. …

      Irrelevant and false equivalence. lemmy and kbin, the platforms relevant to this discussion, are almost identical platforms. Also, this isn’t about likes/upvotes, it’s about karma.

      Suggesting that there is a flag on an individual’s profile that says whether karma is accumulated is one thing. Note that this information isn’t federated out and once it leaves the local instance there’s no way to determine that.

      Yea, this is the proposal, I don’t know why you’re pushing it aside. Also, though karma is an aggregate that, as I understand, is calculated locally on any given instance … you absolutely can tell if the aggregation is done on another instance … just look!

      Suggesting that a vote on another Lemmy instance (or platform) on a comment of someone who has disavowed karma on a different instance leads to defederation is a bit of an overreaction …

      Not what I’m suggesting at all. This isn’t about votes, it’s about the processing of votes in a particular way and the presentation of the result of that process. Again, fallacies here and at this point I’m not sure you understand what I’m talking about, which is a convention of respecting a user’s expressed wishes on what is displayed about them personally as a condition of federation, not the prohibition of voting in any way. I do not understand how you arrived at this conclusion. At this point, honestly, I’m sorry to say, I’m suspicious of your intentions.

      If you don’t want karma, don’t federate likes or dislikes outside of the instance and don’t accept likes or dislikes coming in. Accept that this will mean that the sort order of hot, top, and active will become less meaningful.

      This is lazy tech absolutism. It is a position that is neither necessary, obvious, or fruitful.

      Remember that there are other platforms out there and this reads a lot like a new kid on the block trying to set the rules for everyone else in the neighborhood who have been there for a much longer time.

      Sorry to say … but this made me LOL. Establishing norms over federation isn’t a new idea I’ve just cooked up. Nor is this proposal trying to set any rules … this is about respecting users choices and privacy, which is very much in the spirit of the fediverse. It’s this sort of tech absolutism that is more likely to be the new kid on the block. Moreover, there are no rules, diversity is part of the point. But that doesn’t preclude conventions, expectations and behaviours around establishing and enforcing these. In fact, that’s how you get the diversity, and is part of the point.