Just wish there were more transparency around counts and content engagement.

I firmly believe most influencer these day were propped up with payed views and botted engagement. Not that lemmy is the same but it all feels so dirty.

  • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I prefer votes being semi-anonymous. The vote counts are technically public, you just have to use software that displays them, but that added barrier is enough for most people to never check and that is how I prefer it. I feel like seeing voter names just encourages getting into pissing contests about “why did you downvote me” which I don’t want to happen because: A, votes don’t matter and B, if someone downvoted without commenting they probably don’t want to spend half an hour arguing in comments.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      if someone downvoted without commenting they probably don’t want to spend half an hour arguing in comments.

      Bingo.

      • Rogue@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is precisely my reason for why they should be public.

        In my view downvotes should be used sparingly, only to suppress spam and trolling comments that don’t add to the conversation.

        By keeping votes private people just downvote anything they disagree with

          • Rogue@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            You have no reason to so I presume you haven’t.

            If we were actually in a discussion and you started downvoting all my comments I’d see it as a sign of pettiness and disengage.

            I’d probably also tag you as a reminder to myself not to engage with you again.

            • treadful@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              You have no reason to so I presume you haven’t.

              I’m telling you I downvoted your comment.

                • treadful@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I guess. I don’t get it. If I refused to talk to anyone if they ever downvoted me, I would run out of people to talk pretty quickly.

  • hightrix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because the reason for a vote is personal and different to everyone.

    If I see a post with a title containing 20 emojis, I downvote it. Doesn’t matter the content of the post.

    Now, assume that post was about fighting for lgbt rights or fighting against anti-abortion legislation. Some moral crusader sees my downvote and immediately calls me a bigot. When, from my perspective, all I did was downvote a bunch of emojis.

    Take that idea and expand it.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This. One thing I couldn’t stand about Reddit was seeing people who could be doing anything else with their lives, but decided it worthwhile to “background check” other posters.

      This was a big thing with Twitter too. “Oh, they follow such-and-such in their list of 10,000 follows, who turned out to be bad in recent news, so this person’s views are worthless and they must also be bad!”

      Like, being able to have a quick glance and be like “Ah this is clearly a bot / hate-troll / what-haves”, can be handy for some sense of accountability, but purity-testing and association-mobs are the stuff of cautionary science fiction, and should be avoided.

      • Kissaki@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I’ve seen it too often on Lemmy too.

        Most are of what you describe, but not all of them. I have seen valuable background checks before (back on Reddit). I specifically remember an elaborate post about bots/botnet.

        I don’t like your dismissive qualification of “have so little going on in their lives”. Some background checks are good and important. Dismissing people who are willing to invest into that in general, but also dismissing people who “have nothing better to do” for their situation, feels like an awful, uncalled-for, inappropriate insult.

        /edit: Rewording to better get my point across.

        • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Sorry I didn’t mean to cause any offense but maybe I can clarify too. The people I’m referring to are what’s referred to often as “terminally online.” They could be doing anything with themselves and their lives, but instead they’re choosing to deep-dive on anonymous message board posters they disagree with, so they can tear them apart or call them out for some post made years ago, or an assumed affiliation or belief, that kind of thing.

          It’s a choice to be vindictive and petty to people.

          Like, yeah you’re right, sometimes looking at post histories and such can be helpful to unmask a bot net or a troll riling up a community, but I’m referring to people doing it just to be obsessively petty and vindictive to strangers.

          But okay, in good faith I’ll add “decide they have nothing better to do” to emphasize one’s free will, because the joke is that anybody could be doing better than trying to dig up personal beef on each other over message boards when nothing is at stake lol.