The same for where people are asking for help or advice, downvotes and upvotes can help crowdsource accurate and useful answers much better. Otherwise you can end up sifting through tens of answers (sometimes hundreds) and not knowing how accurate those answers could be. At least with up/downvotes there can be some semblence of consensus on what's useful and what's not. It also helps prevent a bajillion replies to helpful comments that are nothing more than +1 or "this!".
You get the most popular answer. No guarantee of the answer being right or accurate.
Removing that and you get answer roulette.
This is another great feature that I will add to my list of suggestions. Thank you. You are absolutely right in that "Post Has Been Answered" feature is absolutely necessary for these types of platforms. Ironically enough, your comment has the most downvotes while being the correct answer to the problem.
I've also mentioned this in numerous threads, but downvotes also are extremely useful against bigotry. When bigoted comments can't or won't be removed (or removed quickly enough), downvotes are reassuring. It sucks to see bigoted comments being expressed and the only thing that can make it better is seeing that the comments are not accepted.
I've noticed in cases where downvoting is not available that such comments are just not upvoted, which kind-of does the same thing... although maybe not in the reassuring way that a downvote would.
The other reassuring-type approach I've seen is replies challenging the individual's negative comment getting showered in upvotes
https://kbin.social/u/CoderKat
https://kbin.social/u/@lemann@lemmy.one
The other reassuring-type approach I've seen is replies challenging the individual's negative comment getting showered in upvotes
I proposed that the metrics (upvote/downvote) are hidden, not gone. Users would still have the ability to vote, the point is to avoid new users who are joining the discussion and instantly forming their opinions before actually engaging with the content. Be it full of love or full of hate, it's crucial to any community to uphold the principles of free speech.
Otherwise, you delve into becoming an echo chamber, regardless of if the ideas within that chamber are good or bad...
Something something, I never learned anything from a man who agreed with me... etc. - Somebody.
While downvoting can certainly provide a sense of validation and solidarity, it's important to remember that it is just one aspect of a larger ecosystem. Curating your own feed empowers individuals to shape their online experiences by blocking or reporting accounts that promote harmful or offensive content. While hate speech can be undesirable or harmful, it is indeed protected under the umbrella of free speech.
You are right that challenging the distasteful opinion happens often. However, seeking validation on the challenge is where we disagree. Encouraging critical thinking and engaging in respectful and thoughtful discussions are essential practices in fostering a healthier online discourse. Challenging negative comments with well-articulated counterarguments and promoting constructive dialogue is a much more powerful way to combat bigotry and promote understanding, especially when compared to an "us vs them" mindset.
By challenging these comments and promoting critical thinking, we can collectively create an environment that values empathy, inclusivity, and the exchange of diverse perspectives.
Thank you both for sharing your thoughts.
I watch tons of diverse YouTube channels, I'd argue that the voting metrics are actually useless to determine clickbait or not. Instead, a system like rep or karma would be more suited. There's also the ability to block an entire channel from your feed... How is relying on anonymous votes actually assisting in the avoidance of clickbait? You have zero context as to why a video is liked or disliked. It would be foolish to say "you should just be able to tell", because I get it, sometimes you really can't. But thankfully, SponsorBlock addon/extension exists and many users utilize it to skip directly to the good part of a video...
When youtube published the dislike counter it was common knowledge that 3% was the threshold for good content, while 1% was excellent and 30% was garbage.
You've pooped 3x today? No, you've been backed up for 3 days? No... Maybe, you just wanted to help prove my point... Either way, thank you for the interaction.
๐(๏พใฎ๏พ๐)
It better be day 3.
Discouraging Clout Chasing Behaviors:
Promoting Content Quality and Relevance:
I see your goal here, but how would this actually work? Like what buttons does the user see?
Are we all still collectively deciding what counts as valuable contributions? If so, this sounds veryyy similar to what we already have using either upvotes or boosts lol.
So what metric(s) do you actually want implemented?
alternative ways to measure influence and impact (insightful comments, fostering discussions, valuable contributions).
If those are the buttons you think we should have, I don't think the internet can be objective enough to make these reliably more useful than an upvote.
If I see buttons saying "Insightful / Fosters Discussion / Valuable", I'm mostly going to just hit any or all of them when I like the content. And I'll click none of them when I dislike content, 'cause duh that's not insightful or valuable!
So what should we actually do to achieve these noble goals?
Engagement, interactions, relevance, and authenticity
Ehh, sorting by interactions can encourage excess commenting or spamming near content you want promoted. More interactions doesn't necessarily mean higher quality. I'm commenting several times on this post, but it could have been one commentary for the exact same content. Should this thread's quality be treated differently based on my format?
Unfortunately, engagement is highest around controversial topics, which again doesn't necessarily indicate the highest quality content.
I'm pretty sure sorting by relevance is how YouTube & TikTok try to serve you content, but I don't think we should aspire to black box algorithms.
Agh, I swear I'm not trying to just shoot down all your ideas. I'm trusting based on your writing that you're open to collective constructive criticism. You're obviously thinking here, thinking more than most people do lol.
It's just that this is a very complex issue, that will need very nuanced solutions. Humans have spent a heck of a lot of time, money and effort trying to figure about it, and we still seem to get it wrong a lot haha.
what buttons does the user see?
Voting options could still exist, the point is that the metrics are hidden (when it's something as simple as Up or Down). You wouldn't see how many people agree or disagree with a post or the content the've decided to post. Discouraging the countless accounts who repost the same memes to the same communities multiples times per week.
I'm mostly going to just hit any or all of them when I like the content. And I'll click none of them when I dislike content
Ideally, there would be multiple options (engaging, comprehensive, shitpost, etc) but a user would only be allowed to select one, and wouldn't be able to submit it without reaching a specific character limit explaining their position. Albeit, some would just fill the character limit with emojis, no doubt. In turn, the hope is that the community would call out such behaviors because, admittedly...
I don't think the internet can be objective enough to make these reliably more useful than an upvote
...I might be naive and have more faith in people...
Should this thread's quality be treated differently based on my format?
The simplest answer is that it would be unlikely that a single user would be able to heavily influence that metric. More heavily weighing the amount of the engaged users.
but I don't think we should aspire to black box algorithms
I most assuredly agree. "Security through obscurity" has never been the correct answer. That's why we have open discussions, so more than just a few people can find the vulnerabilities. ;)
I'm trusting based on your writing that you're open to collective constructive criticism.
That's exactly why I'm here. I've never enjoyed most social media platforms, so when I heard people were migrating, I had to check it out. Come to find out, all these alternate, open platforms are just recreating the same disaster. Taking the, in my opinion, worst aspects of social platforms and trying to justify their continued usage...
Humans have spent a heck of a lot of time, money and effort trying to figure about it, and we still seem to get it wrong a lot haha.
Name one time when money has created something better than that which was created by a heartfelt, open source, community (don't actually LOL).
Again, I appreciate your input. It's why I'm here, to talk to people who actually care and want something better. How can we say we're moving forward and progressing when we're actually just revolving?
I'm absolutely of the mindset that all non-comment interactions should be totally anonymous. I'm disincentivized to react to content, positively or (especially) negatively, because I expect that the Reddit-style behavior of trawling a user's history if you disagree with them is commonplace. We need full anonymity - not just pseudonymity.
If you're that afraid that people like that are just hiding in the woodwork and will jump on anything they find, why engage at all?
Wait aren't you one post ago saying you want to hide post history because people using your post history against you made you afraid to comment?
Like I'm not even going through a post history, it's your response right above hers. I'd even argue that the kindof people she's worried about are much, much, much more common than people who go into other's user histories.
I think maybe 10 times in 10 years did I ever have anyone actually try to attack my argument using my post history....
That's from comments. Comments, by nature, have to be pseudonymous unless we go full-on 4chan with anonymity. If I'm commenting or posting something, that's fine - I'm arguing that the upvotes should be anonymous, as they are on Reddit. I don't want someone else being able to see my voting history - or anyone else's, because agreement or disagreement with a post or a comment isn't something that I feel should be public.
We all have the power to curate our own online spaces by using common features like blocking and reporting. Moderation on smaller platforms would certainly be rough though, depending on the amount of users or abusers said platforms happens to attract.
what I need is an easier way to tell the two groups apart
People tend to surround themselves with others who are like minded... Shielding themselves from opposition... This creation of echo chambers has very negative effects... Confirmation bias, limiting your understanding, stagnation of your ideas, and an increasing polarization surround the issues at hand. Seeking validation and interaction from people who disagree with our views promotes intellectual growth, critical thinking, and empathy.
It doesn't matter how good or bad someone's ideas are if you only have people telling you your ideas are great...
It is crucial to recognize that merely receiving praise and agreement from others, regardless of the quality of our ideas, does not lead to genuine progress or personal development. Acceptance of our views by others should not be expected if we are unwilling to embrace alternative viewpoints ourselves. As we as a society empathize more with marginalized communities, it becomes even more vital to create spaces that encourage open dialogue, understanding, and respect for diverse opinions.
Indeed, free speech has it's limitations. But, I implore you to engage with these people you try to shield yourself from... Destroy their arguments with logic. Downvoting them or having them banned does nothing to encourage intellectual growth from either side of the argument.
More often then not, there's nothing stopping them from coming back with a new account...
If you look at my post history, I tend to write long things a lot, but I like emoji reacts too -- Sometimes you just want to "yeah, love it!" or "Huh, made me think" or "Shocking!" and that's not really appropriate for a whole post.
Hmm, I think I understand your goals here, but I don't fully understand their implementation. I'm gonna reply in sections because you deserve nuanced response!
Hiding Voting Metrics:
Okay, so I participated in a similar discussion about removing downvotes recently.
Right off the bat, one of the key concerns here is that the technology we're using makes all voting public as a baseline. You can opt to close your own eyes (hide them for yourself or for your instance), but other people or instances will still see the votes because ActivityPub transfers information as "users acting upon other content."
So unfortunately this may be a hard feature to shift without fediverse-wide agreement (or fediverse splintering).
Anyways, I have some concerns about the actual goal here, because we can't actually prevent all fear of judgement or backlash. Anytime you say anything, someone can disagree with you by text comment, which can be very strong disagreement while staying within normal moderation limits.
But! I can see that mitigating the effects of voting may reduce the punishments for participating outside narrow echo-chambers, and that seems important. Even if I don't think this is the correct solution, it is a worthwhile discussion!
I propose making downvotes have no effect on reputation. It's okay to know people disagree with you. We just reduce the extent a downvote harms users. I'm even willing to make upvotes have no effect on reputation either, to address some of your later concerns.
This would let people casually agree/disagree with comments as we all seem to like doing. Rather than committing to a full comment when I don't have a meaningful contribution, a little upvote feels like the correct way to say "Nice!" vs no response and letting the author think they aren't being seen. But benign voting would be for just that specific content with no further ramifications lol.
I do find vote counts have benefits for me, letting me feel the pulse of community response, and I'm idealistic about finding a healthy medium!
I'm by no means asking for immediate action or implementation. just attempting to provoke discussion and thought into the topic. I both understand and appreciate what is already happening here and the level of effort it would take to redesign and roll out global changes.
we can't actually prevent all fear of judgement or backlash
Of course not, it would be foolish to think otherwise. This is the internet, hatred and controversy will always exist. However, you can lead a horse to water...
which can be very strong disagreement while staying within normal moderation limits.
In my mind, this is the preferred interaction. Users should always be able to see all perspectives within a discussion. It makes one think more about the content they are consuming, offers more context for the lurkers, and it's very simple for any user to block or hide any other user from future interactions (if that's what they feel is needed).
I propose making downvotes have no effect on reputation.
I didn't address my perspective regarding rep or karma, but I should have. This goes back to my previous point and another topic I didn't touch on, moderation. I agree with both proposals. A better system for troll-free magazines or online spaces MIGHT be as simple as looking at how many users have blocked a specific account. Though, it's likely to be more nuanced than this considering how passionate some people are certain issues.
a little upvote feels like the correct way to say "Nice!" vs no response and letting the author think they aren't being seen.
I was never much of a social media user, however, I think one thing that reddit did right was the awards. Unfortunately, the moderators likely didn't see any of that income (something to keep in mind considering the budding state of alt social platforms). Point being, I think something like that is much more rewarding than an upvote, while a conversation outweighs both.
vote counts have benefits for me, letting me feel the pulse of community response, and I'm idealistic about finding a healthy medium!
I'd argue that it isn't healthy at all. But this circles back to the clout chasing argument. I think healthy discussion is going to give a user more than an arrow can ever give, while also promoting critical thinking and the development of more substantial connections among users and the community.
Thank your for taking the time.
Huh, okay! I'm mostly nodding along in agreement here.
I was never much of a social media user, however, I think one thing that reddit did right was the awards. Unfortunately, the moderators likely didn't see any of that income (something to keep in mind considering the budding state of alt social platforms). Point being, I think something like that is much more rewarding than an upvote, while a conversation outweighs both.
Interesting, that's unexpected! I'm surprised because I see huge piles of reddit awards as pretty comparable to huge blocks of discord emoji reactions, and you said you don't want the emojis lol. Do you just like that actual money was committed, or what's going on here?
I think we should very cautiously approach how we handle money and transactions affect anything around here, so... strong hesitation lol.
I'd argue that it isn't healthy at all. But this circles back to the clout chasing argument. I think healthy discussion is going to give a user more than an arrow can ever give, while also promoting critical thinking and the development of more substantial connections among users and the community.
Huh. Okay, well. My initial reaction is confusion, but I'm willing to review my beliefs lol.
So of course, healthy discussion is incredibly valuable and positive. But what if I don't really have anything meaningful to say?
For example, imagine I see a thread where someone has refinished their bench (probably in a woodworking or DIY kind of magazine). Let's say I arrive late to the thread too, so plenty of people have already asked all the interesting questions like techniques, what products were used, origins of the bench etc. So usually this is where I'd just upvote lol.
I don't want to pass by with no interaction, so... I guess I'll pick random small talk so they know I like it? "Neat! Can't wait to see your next project!" or something?
So instead of 25 high quality comments and 60 upvotes, that thread likely ends with 50 comments of which half really just say "Nice!" (+ an unknown amount of upvotes). I suppose it's nicer to hear the specific words of encouragement, but it is certainly much more effort and likely a poorer noise:signal in the comments lol.
On scores and โkarmaโ specifically, another issue with visible voting metrics is how they encourage the dopamine-chasing behavior thatโs so common to social media platforms. This artificial โvalidationโ pushes us towards inauthenticity and feeds our addictions to bigger numbers.
It's about encouraging people to have fun in other ways. Ways which require slightly more effort and, in the end, create a better community through active engagement.
I appreciate your perspective on the matter and you're right that it may appear less "fun" on the surface. But nothing would stop low effort responses, or as previously posted by another user, a response full of poop emojis. LOL
It seems an opinion aiming to functional limitation of the SNS tools to curb foolish thinking of people.
I think the means and the end are reversed.
IMO, SNS tools should finally aim to cultivate people's wisdom.
To achieve this, it should allow them to visualize people's foolish ideas, not to hide them, while allowing them to discuss corrective measures.
I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. However...
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter. I understand and appreciate your viewpoint regarding the implementation of these tools. It's true that such tools can play a role in addressing and mitigating the spread of, what I would consider "useless content".
Upon reflecting on your comment, I also recognize that my own experiences and interactions within certain communities might contribute to my perception of the issue. It's possible that I have been engaging with communities that fundamentally do not align with my own values, thus cultivating my thoughts into this matter.
While there are valid reasons to consider the impact of limiting certain content, I also believe it's important to strike a balance and foster an environment that promotes open dialogue and critical thinking. We should encourage users to engage with different viewpoints and facilitate discussions that allow for the exploration of wisdom.
I believe we both agree that by engaging in constructive discussions, users can collectively work towards improving understanding, challenging misinformation, and ultimately fostering wiser and more informed conversations. Regardless of if those means are through memes or long form, discussion type content.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. I look forward to hearing any future input you have on the topic.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
The exact opposite happened on youtube. Once they hid the downvotes we were unable to recognize relevant content from clickbait.
save