Some will cheer, some will be mildly disappointed. But I'm out, I think.
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
308 points (96.1% liked)
Fediverse memes
3307 readers
212 users here now
Memes about the Fediverse.
Rules
General
- Be respectful
- Post on topic
- No bigotry or hate speech
- Memes should not be personal attacks towards other users
- We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
- This is not the place to start flamewars between Lemmy, Mbin and Piefed.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse
Other relevant communities:
- !fediverse@lemmy.world
- !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !lemmydrama@lemmy.world
- !fediverselore@lemmy.ca
- !bestofthefediverse@lemmy.ca
- !fedigrow@lemmy.zip
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
if a minority of 40% can dictate an election outcome over the remaining 60%, some of whom didn't vote - that's not democracy, that's First-Past-The-Post, and I don't need to bring up british politics to explain why that doesn't work.
You don't have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.
But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That's a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.
Braindead right-wingers consistently vote to deregulate markets and industries they deem to be unfair, just to them, often against their own interests. I'm advocating for regulation for all. Perhaps a sanity check on your own perceived political beliefs might end this discussion
Yes, you're totally right, as long as we restrict everyone's voting rights, then it'll be fair! /s
You're advocating for stupid and unnecessary regulations simply because you think you won't personally be affected by it.
I welcome any invitation to touch grass. I encourage you to do the same, and perhaps look up the definition of equitable
This has nothing to do with equity, you dunce. Voting on the fediverse is not a limited resource. Everyone can do it as much or as little as they want. Until now, when there's an arbitrary limit for no reason.
And if you think the fact that some people don't vote in elections is sufficient justification for taking voting rights away from everyone, then you're frankly an idiot. If that's what you mean by equitable, then that word is functionally meaningless.
The silent majority is made up of more than just the lurkers, and I think you know that despite leaning on it and needless personal attacks to drive your argument
I am curious though now: Attention is a limited resource, you have bots and even some users dominating that resource. How would you go about making it fairer?
"Attention is a limited resource"
What units do you measure that in? Minutes/hours? Everyone has the same amount of it each day, and everyone rations their own attention however they see fit. One person spending hours on the fediverse and upvoting hundreds of posts isn't taking anything away from someone who spends minutes on it and upvotes a dozen.
Whatever you mean by "silent majority", it doesn't matter. You're missing the point that nothing is being taken away from them when someone else votes more than they do.
Let's go with minutes per session, and let's go with majority of users interacting with their front page which is their first point of entry and is set to "Hot". You're certain that one person spending hours upvoting hundreds of posts won't skew what other users see in their browsing period? You're sure that their attention isn't now being diverted elsewhere?
Yes, because that user can still only vote on each post one time. It doesn't skew anything. Either way, for a post to get 100+ upvotes, it requires 100+ users to upvote it, so nothing is going to reach the all feed unless a significant number of users vote on it, and no one single user has a disproportionate impact on that even if they vote on hundreds or thousands of posts.
It's like voting down the ballot when some people only vote for president and governor. It's perfectly fair; they had the same opportunity you did and chose to only vote on two spots. You didn't get an extra vote to cast on any given seat.