26
Is this the typical behaviour of fediverse users? Posts in Apple and Nintendo communities immediately get downvoted by people disliking the companies. Can’t they just block the communities?
(media.piefed.social)
Nothing wrong with downvote. If those companies didn't earn so much hatred topic about them wouldn't get downvoted.
But the posts are in specific Apple/Nintendo communities. Do you downvote those?
If I see them in the feed then yes. Would you downvote a post promoting Adolf Hitler even if it was on a nazi community?
Do you think this is a reasonable comparison?
No, that's a hyperbole to better explain the point. It's a common technique.
Anyway, Hitler is hard to top, but Apple with their support of literal bullying of people is not as nice as you might think.
You know why it's not a good comparison? Because I'm not going to report someone to instance admins for talking about the new Mario Kart.
That sounds like a you issue, not the comparison's.
Are you saying you would report someone to instance admins for talking about Mario Kart?
Do you feel like that's what I was saying?
I feel like you're being willfully obtuse pretending not to understand the difference between being a Nazi and liking Mario Kart.
That's rich coming from you mister "would you report Mario Kart to instance admins."
Anyway, this is getting tiring, so bye.
I'm making a point about why these are not the same thing, and you're willfully ignoring that point.
Wait, you'd stay subscribed to nazi communities just to downvote them instead of blocking them?
And people supporting companies you don't like are equivalent to nazis?
They are saying the posts being on a community dedicated to a thing doesn't make them immune from downvotes.
It was an extreme example, not an equivalence.
They have been banned for 7 days.
For providing an example? Nice, classy.
But why not simply block the community? An "Apple" news item in a community dedicated to "Apple" seems entirely relevant to me, and if I do not like "Apple" then I would want not to influence others to not see that one specific post but to see no similar posts in the future, which is accomplished by blocking the community rather than downvoting.
It would be like if I said that I hated your username b/c I do not like banjos - I don't btw, I love your username actually:-P - but really, who cares, as in why is my opinion relevant in that context? It is your username, you can name yourself whatever you like! I respect that.
Why not respect the preferences of others then, even if they decide to like "Apple"? (I am ignoring the comparison to Hitler b/c that is not merely hyperbole as in quantitatively different but of the same kind, and rather that one is a fully qualitative difference in kind)
You cannot change the entire world - certainly not merely by downvoting. All that you will accomplish by not respecting others' legitimate preferences will be to influence people's opinions of yourself.
That's the kind of mindset that gets people banned based on systematic downvotes
So does simply downvoting the wrong user who made a bot to autoban people who downvoted them. 🤷♂️
Yeah, obviously there are also overzealous mods
The bots that I have heard of - I think it was called Santa or some such? - all require much more than a single downvote.
I dunno, if someone followed me around and downvoted half the stuff that I ever posted, I might make a bot to block them too. The key there is the severity of the "offense".
There was at least one guy on here that basically didn't have weights to his script so someone seeing a post for the first time on All had a very high chance of being seen as a "serial downvoter" from a single negative interaction without a single positive interaction to counter it. It was quite funny but I would hope they fixed that by now.
Hi! I'm the guy.
It wasn't just a single downvote, but that is a factor be to taken into account, the downvoting account gets examined and if it's only downvoting everything, or is used for strategic voting, or is actually more then a single downvote that establishes a pattern.. they would get removed from the community for being a bad fit
My full philosophy https://hackertalks.com/post/13884733
Oh yeah, the admin of Midwest.Social? That was hilarious. A bunch of communities migrated off of that instance, treating it like Lemmy.ml-lite, and I mostly forgot about it:-D.
And it looks like the Santabot project died off, or at least the community migrated without warning or something: !santabot@slrpnk.net.
Are you endorsing that behavior? How ironic that meaningless scores are seen as an offence but removing people's ability to participate is totally fine.
If you intentionally show up somewhere you clearly don't want to be just to "boo" people minding their own business, yeah, you should be asked to leave and barred from "participating".
Common courtesy is to not downvote things in /all that you don't like if you're not subscribed. Just ignore it or block the community and move on.
Am I guilty of that? Hell yeah, I am - never said I wasn't. But I do try to be better and not just knee-jerk to the downvote button if I see something I don't like in a community I'm neither subscribed to nor interested in.
It's never their own business, the very nature of this platform is a form of communication with many people with many different opinions.
If you want to contribute meaningfully to a conversation, try using your words rather than merely downvoting. You may actually change people's minds that way?
But if you are just trying to emotionally satisfy yourself - nothing at all wrong with self-soothing imho, according to every psychology anything that I have ever heard of - then I suggest merely blocking such people or communities instead.
You have the right to your opinion... but the timing of when and where that must be shared is something that should be considered carefully, no? We do not want to be a community of incels here, where all these "such nice men" shove literally all of their collective and unfiltered thoughts down our throats regardless of consent. I say this as a warning to you: you will get banned that way, from many communities, if you actually practice this and not just talk about it theoretically as we are doing here.
"communication" is a 2-way street, and yes you have the capability to downvote, but also yes they can ban / block too.
https://piefed.social/comment/7000465
@skavau@piefed.social FYI
I guess it sucks to have a target audience who doesn't sort by new, skill issue.
Or I could just ban repeat downvoters lol
(Have only done this twice since making the transition)
Do you take their overall up/down ratio into account?
No. I will note though that half of the people I banned for downvoting on the old lemm.ee instance didn't even have a comment history. Their accounts only existed to downvote. Others had been banned repeatedly by other communities for mass community downvoting. But even if they did, I would've still banned them. They were constantly downvoting new posts posted to the community and had no engagement with the community in comments or posts. How they may have behaved outside of it wouldn't have come into it for me.
If it's meaningless why does it matter if someone can't do the meaningless thing anymore?