Sure thing, you could tackle some of those, or any of the help wanted tickets. I don’t like those huge tickets because its hard to track specific work in them.
One of the constant issues faced by any social tooling, and I don’t want to say “network” as that’s not really a good choice of words in my opinion, is a “network affect”.
The idea of your friends’ friends’ get dragged along to use the platform. So far, every federated social solution has had the issue of network affect being near zilch with regular people. Meaning it spreads best through highly interlinked groups, such as the so called tech-o-sphere and the extremist political movements.
Yes it does, although federation is still in active development, and lemmy will first only federate with itself (its the only one that’s based not on following people, but following communities.)
One thing I really love about lemmy over reddit is the ability to post pictures as comments, it’s a great and really obvious feature that reddit still doesn’t have
Tried to make a community but tells me it already exists. A search for that community does not return any results. Is this a security measure for new users?
You don’t need to fork, just follow these setup instructions, then once we get federation completed, we’ll have setup instructions that won’t break anything.
I’d say maybe 1-3 months. I dev build of it has pretty much all the actions working at enterprise.lemmy.ml , ds9.lemmy.ml and voyager.lemmy.ml , but it still has a lot of security and related things to add.
Lemmy Instances can disable downvotes (I added this a while back), but I personally really like downvotes.
FB, twitter, youtube, all either don’t have them, or removed them, with reddit one of the last sites willing to keep a dislike action.
But also, why does a downvote need an explanation, but an upvote doesn’t? If someone doesn’t want to tell you why they like / dislike your comment, they shouldn’t have to.
also, imagine a big discussion. Where people write 50 words and one responds with “I disagree.” and responds to explain why one detail is wrong.
This is easy to be missunderstood as “all/most of those 50words are wrong”. So i like the force to explain downvotes as separation between criticism and aggreeing stuff.
When debates get heated, people will forget that. They will forget to cite at all. They will downvote like hell. And all that makes debating culture difficult.
And i can tell from personal experience, that people do not explain their downvotes. You have to ask and even then, only some answer.
With that, i can tell you: the current way won’t lead to constructive learning, where people understand each other.
But also, why does a downvote need an explanation, but an upvote doesn’t?
Because the downvote is for me like criticism. Something is obviously wrong with the thing and i want to know why. I want to learn from it and understand whether i should adapt my behavior or not. And this decision is only possible when i know the reason for every downvote.
Also, because upvotes are harder to explain. Usually there all something like “interesting, hand’t thought about this before”. When you have 20 upvotes, they are probably all very similar.
However, for downvotes it is different. You can downvote things because of:
factual errors (for instance when some number is relevant but wrong. -> I want to know which number is wrong and the source.)
missing contextual information (article is negative on topic X, but after knowing Y, it is not that negative anymore and understandable. --> I want to know that.)
information is correct, but because of bias/stereotypes, the person downvotes. The information in the article explains these things, but the person is too lazy to read that and downvotes before reading. I want to know that so i can ignore the downvote.
etc. So many different reasons to downvote. All of them are important to me.
For me downvotes are a feedback system. So i can differentiate good articles from ones with errors.
If someone doesn’t want to tell you why they like / dislike your comment, they shouldn’t have to.
But what should i do with this feedback? What if its because of bias, stereotypes? and the person is not interested in participating in the debate?
i find something that makes online discussions more fun and less frustrating is to learn to just accept the downvotes… sometimes they make you want to lash out and say, “hey wtf did i say, do you not agree? if not why not!?” but at the end of the day… just relax… they are just internet points… it’s a lot more relaxing to just see the number, and say to yourself… “damn… guess i misstepped on that one somehow… oh well”… and just move on. like the above poster says, no one actually owes you an explanation, after all. just remember that downvotes are part of the game, they are going to happen, and try not to let it get to you.
also, i’ll add, sometimes you want to own those downvotes… sometimes it’s okay to have a dissenting opinion, and you should learn to role with that. “20 downvotes, i hit a nerve I guess, but fuck it I’m right and I’m sticking with what i said.” I feel like going out after a bad-ass comment and asking for downvote explanations just takes away from any solid position you were trying to take.
Slashdot has (had? haven’t been there in a long time) a system in which you can upvote/downvote but also assign a reason, i.e. it’s funny, insightful, off-topic, spam. Perhaps it could be taken further so you could upvote a good comment but also signal you disagree with it somehow - this is especially helpful in political discussions as I don’t like to disrespect people I disagree with who are debating in good faith.
isn’t the point of a down vote that it’s lower friction than “I will now explain to you why I think this is wrong / bad / off-topic”? like… if your expectation is that people should respond to everything they think is bad, then a. that means that trolls can suck up infinite time/energy and b. why even have down votes
I talk about many legitimate questions, not ones with the intention to troll. Like, where actual content is happening, debates and such.
I have to ALWAYS ask what the reasons are which is really annoying. Like, i don’t know what to do when i read an article, agree with it but it has some downvotes.
Or when i see some minor issues, i wonder: was this the reason for people to downvote it? Or was it something else? like factual errors or missing out important things? Or did the person reading it just disagree with the opinion stated there or just dislike it?
Downvotes itself are fine. but the lack of reasons is annoying for me, not the downvotes itself. What i seek is intellectual debate, understanding concepts. And this is so much harder when negative feedback is not explained properly.
I talk about many legitimate questions, not ones with the intention to troll. Like, where actual content is happening, debates and such.
I agree with this. I have had experiences where I felt like I was saying something as simple as 2+2=4 and downvoted for reasons that seemed inscrutable to me.
I think it is healthy to challenge irrational mobs who downvote for no reason, or for petty reasons. Reasons, that, if challenged and put into language, would turn out to be ridiculous and expose the pettiness driving downvotes.
This is part of a concern I’ve had with the irrational mobs at reddit. A long time ago, there wasn’t really any set rule about downvotes, but if you asked why you were downvoted, irrational mobs don’t like that. So they like when you don’t ask, and so a norm was created that you’re not allowed to ask about downvotes, which helps reinforce the mob behavior.
So if anything, I want that to have to be normalized: it’s regular, normal, expected, reasonable, appropriate, to ask from time to time why the downvotes are happening and expect an explanation, especially in unusual cases where the downvotes seem to have no reasoning behind them.
So if anything, I want that to have to be normalized: it’s regular, normal, expected, reasonable, appropriate, to ask from time to time why the downvotes are happening and expect an explanation, especially in unusual cases where the downvotes seem to have no reasoning behind them.
This is what i do, but i feel many people downvoting don’t read that, so i never know the reason
So ideally, i would like to force users to explain their downvotes. And every explanation is fine, for me. Like also things like “troll” and just that.
I hate reddit because of the toxic community. You say something even slightly which people don’t agree with, you’re heavily criticized and downvoted to hell. On top of that, the popular and all page is filled with American news, American stuff, All about USA. As a non American it gets very annoying very soon. I do like some of the communities especially for tech support. Or rather Linux support. I hope Lemmy develops and has great success in future. Good luck guys and thank you!
On top of that, the popular and all page is filled with American news, American stuff, All about USA. As a non American it gets very annoying very soon.
I agree with that, and really hope we can avoid it. Like by having better support for different languages.
I mean what I said. The first Antifa was founded 100 years ago in Germany, and the name literally means “anti-fascist action”. So if you have a problem with that, this instance is not for you.
That’s not true at all. Antifa has a long history in Europe, these are some groups are associated with the name antifa and they are a lot older than the current Trump namecalling.
Hi, I’m new to Lemmy. One of the reasons I hate Reddit, is because of its toxic community. A lot of rules, no easy way to post without getting downvoted, removed or criticized. I hope «Lemmyverse» doesn’t turn into the same shit Reddit is for me.
A lot of rules, no easy way to post without getting downvoted, removed or criticized.
I want to zoom in on this for a second. One problem is that the behavior of mobs is complex. But you can’t talk about it at all, because conversations cater to extremely short attention spans.
But part of the problem with mobs of mass downvoters is that they steer entire conversations toward supporting mass downvoting. They don’t just downvote what they don’t like, they downvote questions about why they are downvoting. They downvote arguments that say it’s fair to ask questions. They downvote observations that it’s healthy to ask. The whole logical foundation that would lead you to question downvotes itself gets downvoted. And then they argue against it, and then you have a series of arguments that becomes an alternative reality that normalizes, accepts downvoting.
So a lot of it turns into norms. And I don’t think reddit has the sophistication to understand how that’s happening. A lot is at stake in trying to set the right cultural norms on lemmy, and I guess I hope that part of it is the ability to think and talk about these things in a conscious way, and part isn’t just talking about it, but settling on a better system of values than what reddit had.
to be frank, I don’t see why it’s healthy for /u/testuser1 to expect to be able to express views without people criticizing them. I don’t see how you know that other people are being irrational when they have different judgments of what is healthy to bring up. and I feel overall like it’s rather odd that… “that normalizes downvoting”… downvoting is normal! it’s how the platform exposes a way to surface what is “good” and bury what is “bad”, and while that has all the problems you’d expect from any democratic mechanism, it’s not a personal attack or an invitation to debate.
I don’t see why it’s healthy for /u/testuser1 to expect to be able to express views without people criticizing them.
I don’t know how you got that out of what I said. I am not saying, and did not say, that they should expect to be able to express views without people criticizing them.
I don’t see how you know that other people are being irrational when they have different judgments of what is healthy to bring up.
This one is actually pretty easy, extremely easy, I would say, to settle. Look at screenshots posted on /r/FragileWhiteRedditor or actual threads at /r/TheDonald, and look at how perfectly reasonable statements get mass downvoted by irrational mobs. I completely, and boy do I mean completely, reject the idea that it’s too hard to tell whether or not people are being irrational. There may be edge cases where it’s hard to tell, but there are obvious cases too. If we disagree on the basic concept of whether it’s even possible to tell whether any downvoting is ever irrational, then we have a pretty fundamental disagreement.
and I feel overall like it’s rather odd that… “that normalizes downvoting”… downvoting is normal!
There was a lot of qualification and characterization of a specific kind of behavior leading up to that sentence. Mass irrational mobs that downvote reasonable comments and that downvote any request for explanation and that go on to enforce community norms that you’re not even allowed to ask, that is a bad thing. I was trying to open a conversation about the complex set of ripple effects that start with swarming irrational behavior of mobs and translates itself into baked-in community norms. If you’re going to respond to that with ‘gee, why’s he saying downvoting is not normal?! that sure is strange!’ that makes me feel that 90% of what I was saying was just glazed over.
I didn’t get it from what you said, I got it from the OP:
no easy way to post without getting downvoted, removed or criticized
no, you can’t tell whether downvoting is irrational, because it doesn’t provide its rationales for scrutiny. claiming that a down vote is “irrational” when you don’t know someone’s thought process means you’re saying that there is no way anyone could have any rational belief that the comment in question shouldn’t be surfaced or should be buried. you’re talking about “mobs” (a very emotive term) when there’s very little group dynamic to justify it. also, I think Reddit at-large is trash, but even I wouldn’t claim that TheDonald is representative.
this conversation is sort of an example. I disagree with you and I think your arguments are bad. but you’re saying that I must have “glazed” over what you said, as if there’s no possible way that someone could reasonably come to my position rather than yours.
when I get down voted, there’s ambiguity I have to accept. maybe it’s because people don’t like what I said, maybe it’s because they don’t like the tone in which I said it. maybe they have good objections that I haven’t thought through. maybe they have bad ones. maybe they know I’m right and they don’t want to have to confront it! maybe I’m just hanging around a group of assholes. maybe I’m the asshole. maybe they read my username wrong and it sounds offensive to them. it doesn’t really matter. there isn’t a neutral standard of “people should agree with me and surface my opinions by default”.
when I get down voted, there’s ambiguity I have to accept. maybe it’s because people don’t like what I said, maybe it’s because they don’t like the tone in which I said it. maybe they have good objections that I haven’t thought through. maybe they have bad ones. maybe they know I’m right and they don’t want to have to confront it! maybe I’m just hanging around a group of assholes. maybe I’m the asshole. maybe they read my username wrong and it sounds offensive to them. it doesn’t really matter.
I disagree that this is an ambiguity you have to accept. problems are easier to solve when they are known to everybody. And this is easier when they are explained properly.
I understand that it is sometimes hard to invest the time to explain these things, but i think it is worth it.
Huge lemmy instances/communities (think hundreds of thousands) could definitely become very Reddit like… take a look at Mastodon though (which exists a little longer) and you’ll see that mainly smaller communities thrive there. I have a feeling lemmy will stay small scale like that too.
Is there a way to restrict voting to members of the paeticular community only? I run a country community and wouldn’t want non-members to interact with its content - unless they join first.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !announcements@lemmy.ml
Lemmy Announcements
Feel free to announce new communities here.
Other than that, this is reserved for admin use only.
Test
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Sure thing, you could tackle some of those, or any of the help wanted tickets. I don’t like those huge tickets because its hard to track specific work in them.
So, this brings up some interesting questions for me. How do we avoid the Mastodon issue of a lack of network affect?
Whats this mean, whats a lack of network affect.
One of the constant issues faced by any social tooling, and I don’t want to say “network” as that’s not really a good choice of words in my opinion, is a “network affect”.
The idea of your friends’ friends’ get dragged along to use the platform. So far, every federated social solution has had the issue of network affect being near zilch with regular people. Meaning it spreads best through highly interlinked groups, such as the so called tech-o-sphere and the extremist political movements.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m sure this has been said quite a lot but damn if this site doesn’t have the cleanest interface I’ve ever had the pleasure of using.
I would enjoy a mobile app though
Try lemmur for android!
Ask and ye shall receive 😀
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lemmy
this app is the reason i made an account on here
deleted by creator
I hope Lemmy will become a Progressive Web App
Same, it’s easier to jump into than opening a browser and navigating via bookmark or typing.
Definitely. That will be a game changer for the platform. In order to compete, it needs an app.
Test
Android alpha is available now: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lemmy
It is VERY responsive.
Thanks!
Can anyone explain what a federation means? on the github page, lemmy is described as federated, and I honestly have no clue what that means
Here’s a good explainer.
Nice video! Does lemmy support activity pub?
Yes it does, although federation is still in active development, and lemmy will first only federate with itself (its the only one that’s based not on following people, but following communities.)
Found it.
Federation into the ActivityPub network is on the roadmap.Also on Peertube: https://peertube.social/videos/watch/d9bd2ee9-b7a4-44e3-8d65-61badd15c6e6
deleted by creator
One thing I really love about lemmy over reddit is the ability to post pictures as comments, it’s a great and really obvious feature that reddit still doesn’t have
Agree!
Tried to make a community but tells me it already exists. A search for that community does not return any results. Is this a security measure for new users?
That community might have been removed, you can request it on /c/community_requests. Might be a bit tho before I get to it, I’m very busy.
Sounds good. Thanks.
This place is comfy :3
So if I fork this project and start self hosting it, set up my own communities etc, what do I do once federation is here?
You don’t need to fork, just follow these setup instructions, then once we get federation completed, we’ll have setup instructions that won’t break anything.
Sorry shouldn’t have said fork lol. Thank you. Whats the federation status? Is there somewhere I can track that ?
I’d say maybe 1-3 months. I dev build of it has pretty much all the actions working at enterprise.lemmy.ml , ds9.lemmy.ml and voyager.lemmy.ml , but it still has a lot of security and related things to add.
open chat (testing 123)
I hate it when people here are downvoting things without explaining the reasons for it!
Lemmy Instances can disable downvotes (I added this a while back), but I personally really like downvotes.
FB, twitter, youtube, all either don’t have them, or removed them, with reddit one of the last sites willing to keep a
dislikeaction.But also, why does a downvote need an explanation, but an upvote doesn’t? If someone doesn’t want to tell you why they like / dislike your comment, they shouldn’t have to.
deleted by creator
also, imagine a big discussion. Where people write 50 words and one responds with “I disagree.” and responds to explain why one detail is wrong.
This is easy to be missunderstood as “all/most of those 50words are wrong”. So i like the force to explain downvotes as separation between criticism and aggreeing stuff.
When debates get heated, people will forget that. They will forget to cite at all. They will downvote like hell. And all that makes debating culture difficult.
And i can tell from personal experience, that people do not explain their downvotes. You have to ask and even then, only some answer.
With that, i can tell you: the current way won’t lead to constructive learning, where people understand each other.
Because the downvote is for me like criticism. Something is obviously wrong with the thing and i want to know why. I want to learn from it and understand whether i should adapt my behavior or not. And this decision is only possible when i know the reason for every downvote.
Also, because upvotes are harder to explain. Usually there all something like “interesting, hand’t thought about this before”. When you have 20 upvotes, they are probably all very similar.
However, for downvotes it is different. You can downvote things because of:
etc. So many different reasons to downvote. All of them are important to me.
For me downvotes are a feedback system. So i can differentiate good articles from ones with errors.
But what should i do with this feedback? What if its because of bias, stereotypes? and the person is not interested in participating in the debate?
i find something that makes online discussions more fun and less frustrating is to learn to just accept the downvotes… sometimes they make you want to lash out and say, “hey wtf did i say, do you not agree? if not why not!?” but at the end of the day… just relax… they are just internet points… it’s a lot more relaxing to just see the number, and say to yourself… “damn… guess i misstepped on that one somehow… oh well”… and just move on. like the above poster says, no one actually owes you an explanation, after all. just remember that downvotes are part of the game, they are going to happen, and try not to let it get to you.
also, i’ll add, sometimes you want to own those downvotes… sometimes it’s okay to have a dissenting opinion, and you should learn to role with that. “20 downvotes, i hit a nerve I guess, but fuck it I’m right and I’m sticking with what i said.” I feel like going out after a bad-ass comment and asking for downvote explanations just takes away from any solid position you were trying to take.
deleted by creator
Slashdot has (had? haven’t been there in a long time) a system in which you can upvote/downvote but also assign a reason, i.e. it’s funny, insightful, off-topic, spam. Perhaps it could be taken further so you could upvote a good comment but also signal you disagree with it somehow - this is especially helpful in political discussions as I don’t like to disrespect people I disagree with who are debating in good faith.
deleted by creator
shout out to lemmy for not having aggregate comment karma
isn’t the point of a down vote that it’s lower friction than “I will now explain to you why I think this is wrong / bad / off-topic”? like… if your expectation is that people should respond to everything they think is bad, then a. that means that trolls can suck up infinite time/energy and b. why even have down votes
I talk about many legitimate questions, not ones with the intention to troll. Like, where actual content is happening, debates and such.
I have to ALWAYS ask what the reasons are which is really annoying. Like, i don’t know what to do when i read an article, agree with it but it has some downvotes.
Or when i see some minor issues, i wonder: was this the reason for people to downvote it? Or was it something else? like factual errors or missing out important things? Or did the person reading it just disagree with the opinion stated there or just dislike it?
Downvotes itself are fine. but the lack of reasons is annoying for me, not the downvotes itself. What i seek is intellectual debate, understanding concepts. And this is so much harder when negative feedback is not explained properly.
I agree with this. I have had experiences where I felt like I was saying something as simple as 2+2=4 and downvoted for reasons that seemed inscrutable to me.
I think it is healthy to challenge irrational mobs who downvote for no reason, or for petty reasons. Reasons, that, if challenged and put into language, would turn out to be ridiculous and expose the pettiness driving downvotes.
This is part of a concern I’ve had with the irrational mobs at reddit. A long time ago, there wasn’t really any set rule about downvotes, but if you asked why you were downvoted, irrational mobs don’t like that. So they like when you don’t ask, and so a norm was created that you’re not allowed to ask about downvotes, which helps reinforce the mob behavior.
So if anything, I want that to have to be normalized: it’s regular, normal, expected, reasonable, appropriate, to ask from time to time why the downvotes are happening and expect an explanation, especially in unusual cases where the downvotes seem to have no reasoning behind them.
This is what i do, but i feel many people downvoting don’t read that, so i never know the reason
So ideally, i would like to force users to explain their downvotes. And every explanation is fine, for me. Like also things like “troll” and just that.
deleted by creator
I hate reddit because of the toxic community. You say something even slightly which people don’t agree with, you’re heavily criticized and downvoted to hell. On top of that, the popular and all page is filled with American news, American stuff, All about USA. As a non American it gets very annoying very soon. I do like some of the communities especially for tech support. Or rather Linux support. I hope Lemmy develops and has great success in future. Good luck guys and thank you!
deleted by creator
I agree with that, and really hope we can avoid it. Like by having better support for different languages.
Or tags!
deleted by creator
Klingt gut! Du kannst gerne hier auf deutsch posten, aber es gibt auch schon eine deutsche Instanz.
I mean, I guess you tried. Nothing says this is an American community more than this :grinning squinting face:
https://lemmy.ml/post/34286
laughs in Antifa being a worldwide ideology
You think Antifa is American?
If you didn’t mean it to be, then it’s probably better to say that this instance is Anti-fascist.
Because Antifa is being used a lot recently regarding a specific political movement in America.
I mean what I said. The first Antifa was founded 100 years ago in Germany, and the name literally means “anti-fascist action”. So if you have a problem with that, this instance is not for you.
That’s not true at all. Antifa has a long history in Europe, these are some groups are associated with the name antifa and they are a lot older than the current Trump namecalling.
Hi, I’m new to Lemmy. One of the reasons I hate Reddit, is because of its toxic community. A lot of rules, no easy way to post without getting downvoted, removed or criticized. I hope «Lemmyverse» doesn’t turn into the same shit Reddit is for me.
I want to zoom in on this for a second. One problem is that the behavior of mobs is complex. But you can’t talk about it at all, because conversations cater to extremely short attention spans.
But part of the problem with mobs of mass downvoters is that they steer entire conversations toward supporting mass downvoting. They don’t just downvote what they don’t like, they downvote questions about why they are downvoting. They downvote arguments that say it’s fair to ask questions. They downvote observations that it’s healthy to ask. The whole logical foundation that would lead you to question downvotes itself gets downvoted. And then they argue against it, and then you have a series of arguments that becomes an alternative reality that normalizes, accepts downvoting.
So a lot of it turns into norms. And I don’t think reddit has the sophistication to understand how that’s happening. A lot is at stake in trying to set the right cultural norms on lemmy, and I guess I hope that part of it is the ability to think and talk about these things in a conscious way, and part isn’t just talking about it, but settling on a better system of values than what reddit had.
to be frank, I don’t see why it’s healthy for /u/testuser1 to expect to be able to express views without people criticizing them. I don’t see how you know that other people are being irrational when they have different judgments of what is healthy to bring up. and I feel overall like it’s rather odd that… “that normalizes downvoting”… downvoting is normal! it’s how the platform exposes a way to surface what is “good” and bury what is “bad”, and while that has all the problems you’d expect from any democratic mechanism, it’s not a personal attack or an invitation to debate.
i have trouble to undetstand what you mean here.
i completely aggree with that. And i like downvotes, i have no problems with them. But i want to know the reason for people to downvote.
I don’t know how you got that out of what I said. I am not saying, and did not say, that they should expect to be able to express views without people criticizing them.
This one is actually pretty easy, extremely easy, I would say, to settle. Look at screenshots posted on /r/FragileWhiteRedditor or actual threads at /r/TheDonald, and look at how perfectly reasonable statements get mass downvoted by irrational mobs. I completely, and boy do I mean completely, reject the idea that it’s too hard to tell whether or not people are being irrational. There may be edge cases where it’s hard to tell, but there are obvious cases too. If we disagree on the basic concept of whether it’s even possible to tell whether any downvoting is ever irrational, then we have a pretty fundamental disagreement.
There was a lot of qualification and characterization of a specific kind of behavior leading up to that sentence. Mass irrational mobs that downvote reasonable comments and that downvote any request for explanation and that go on to enforce community norms that you’re not even allowed to ask, that is a bad thing. I was trying to open a conversation about the complex set of ripple effects that start with swarming irrational behavior of mobs and translates itself into baked-in community norms. If you’re going to respond to that with ‘gee, why’s he saying downvoting is not normal?! that sure is strange!’ that makes me feel that 90% of what I was saying was just glazed over.
I didn’t get it from what you said, I got it from the OP:
no, you can’t tell whether downvoting is irrational, because it doesn’t provide its rationales for scrutiny. claiming that a down vote is “irrational” when you don’t know someone’s thought process means you’re saying that there is no way anyone could have any rational belief that the comment in question shouldn’t be surfaced or should be buried. you’re talking about “mobs” (a very emotive term) when there’s very little group dynamic to justify it. also, I think Reddit at-large is trash, but even I wouldn’t claim that TheDonald is representative.
this conversation is sort of an example. I disagree with you and I think your arguments are bad. but you’re saying that I must have “glazed” over what you said, as if there’s no possible way that someone could reasonably come to my position rather than yours.
when I get down voted, there’s ambiguity I have to accept. maybe it’s because people don’t like what I said, maybe it’s because they don’t like the tone in which I said it. maybe they have good objections that I haven’t thought through. maybe they have bad ones. maybe they know I’m right and they don’t want to have to confront it! maybe I’m just hanging around a group of assholes. maybe I’m the asshole. maybe they read my username wrong and it sounds offensive to them. it doesn’t really matter. there isn’t a neutral standard of “people should agree with me and surface my opinions by default”.
I disagree that this is an ambiguity you have to accept. problems are easier to solve when they are known to everybody. And this is easier when they are explained properly.
I understand that it is sometimes hard to invest the time to explain these things, but i think it is worth it.
The community swarming the downvote is i agree with.
Huge lemmy instances/communities (think hundreds of thousands) could definitely become very Reddit like… take a look at Mastodon though (which exists a little longer) and you’ll see that mainly smaller communities thrive there. I have a feeling lemmy will stay small scale like that too.
Is there a way to restrict voting to members of the paeticular community only? I run a country community and wouldn’t want non-members to interact with its content - unless they join first.
This will have to wait for private communities, there’s a github issue for that.
How would we enforce this though? If people wanted to brigade the community, they would probably just subscribe to it just to vote.
Once the user management part of mod powers is robustly implemented (that is, it is anywhere close to what reddit has), it wouldn’t be a problem.
Moderators must, at the minimum, have the power to see the list of their communuties’ users along with time stamps of joining.