119
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
119 points (83.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43733 readers
1150 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The structure of Reddit’s content aggregation and curation leads to a regression to the mean. Things that are broadly agreed-upon, even if wrong, are amplified, and things that are controversial, even if correct, are attenuated. What floats to the top is whatever the hive mind agrees is least objectionable to the most people.
One solution that seems to work elsewhere is to disable downvoting. Downvoting makes it too easy to suppress controversial perspectives. Someone could put forward a thoughtful position on something, and if a few people don’t like the title and hit the downvote button, that post may be effectively buried. No rebuttal, no discourse, just “I don’t like this, make it go away.” Removing the downvote means if you don’t like something, you can either ignore it, or you can put effort into responding to it.
The “downvote to disagree” thing isn’t just an attitude problem, it’s a structural issue. No amount of asking people nicely to obey site etiquette will change the fact that the downvote button is a disagree button. If you don’t want a hive mind, you necessarily need to be able to allow for things you don’t like to be amplified.
Twitter is actually better for this than Reddit because it has the quote function. You can amplify something you don’t like as a way of getting other people to hate it with you. It’s not perfect, but there’s no way of having it both ways. “Reddiquette” was never a real thing, just a polite fiction that ignores the Eternal September world that we live in.
If you have the same structure as Reddit, you will recreate Reddit. Lemmy isn’t going to be different if all the incentives and interactive elements are the same.
Actually, with enough interactions from different people (ie: enough data points) Lemmy should be able to determine if a comment brings value to the conversation (either positive or negative) or if it's noise that should be ignored (and prioritized lower).
If you have 4 comments:
It's obvious that 1 and 3 are providing more to the conversation than 2. 4 is a bit of an outlier, but probably provides more value than 2.
Regarding 3: The challenge would be that there's a low chance that there will be such a wide margin of upvotes/downvotes. Due to the hive mind, the voting will probably look like 30 upvotes and 130 downvotes. So, there would need to be a weight accordingly, so those fewer upvotes had a greater impact (in terms of sorting and scoring comments)
Reddit has a "sort by controversial" algorithm that seems to be missing from Lemmy (or maybe it's hidden in the “what's hot" - I haven't looked at the code).
It would be awesome (and resource intensive) if Lemmy could provide the federated instances with custom sorting algorithms. It would allow federated instances to be unique, provide some playful competition, and given the open source nature of Lemmy - I'm sure these algorithms would be open sourced, which would improve the entire Lemmy ecosystem as a whole.
You're assuming that downvotes only come from individual users with good-faith opinions there.
Relying upon an automated system to decide the "value of a conversation" is, and will continue to be, an open invitation to gamify, metagame, and manipulate such automated systems, just as it was on Reddit and elsewhere.
I'm not sure I agree that disabling downvoting really solves the problem. It might help, but not a huge amount. Because you still end up with people upvoting stuff they like and not upvoting stuff they don't. So instead of being +1/-1 it becomes +1/+0. The stuff that they would have downvoted still ends up sinking towards the bottom, just perhaps not quite as quickly as otherwise.
I do think your thoughts about quote Xits are really interesting though. It's a two-edged sword. On the one hand, by amplifying what you're disagreeing with you do also provide an opportunity for more people (rather than less, as on Reddit) to be exposed to it, potentially changing their mind. On the other hand, it's a tool ripe for abuse and creating more harassment, especially since the people you're amplifying it to are usually primed to agree with you.
A lot of the issues on Reddit is a human problem. I agree – solutions need to be built into the platform itself, by thoughtful design. It makes less work for the mods too.