You can see who upvoted and downvoted a post by viewing it in friendica.
-
A fair point that I admittedly don't know how to solve. The closest I've got to a "functional" idea is to focus on splitting the two (I think? maybe three) things that an "upvote" is interpreted as, and supplementing with also the opposite / counter message:
- "I like what this post is about" (basically a like / heart / kudos)
- "I found this information useful / verified / checked" (a more proper upvote)
- (optionally) "I want this information to be more easily found"
Pretty much everything else can be a comment, as you say, but the purpose and reception of a message should also be as streamlined to communicate as possible.
-
There are some instances that disable downvotes altogether!
-
Use https://tesseract.dubvee.org/home/all/scaled to show downvotes
Assess whether banning makes sense for someone who only downvotes content
-
How exactly can I see who downvoted? Can't seem to find it in the regular view, and the debug info only shows the vote count, not the voter.
-
I'd also like to know as I'm in the same boat you are. I'm just leaving this comment to remember to look later and see if you got an answer.
-
No, sometimes it is about blocking.
If you run a small community like several of us do, even a small amount of downvotes can completely shut down a discussion from ever being seen by anyone else. It's a way petty assholes have of trying to kill conversation in small communities because they don't like something about what you said or how you said it.
If someone neither wants to contribute nor lurk, and merely drag down a community, they shouldn't be allowed to continue to be a part of it at all.
-
Oof, hell no. That's some Facebook level cancer right there when they removed downvotes.
It's just a form of white washing that makes the same people who made up being offended by "black lists" and "master branch".
-
Some people seem to really hate down votes. I don't give a shit either way.
-
Bummer.
It depends what your threat model is. Admins being dickheads about who downvoted what was the main issue at the time so I made it about choosing which admins to trust.
If future Lemmy versions show votes to mods (not just admins) then Pandora's box would be well and truly open so we'd need to rethink this.
-
This isn't just a Frendica thing; you can see this from Mastodon, mbin/kbin, etc. Many people seem to think upvotes and downvotes are private, but the reality is that they're publicly available information by default in ActivityPub. Lemmy just hides the information on the front-end for "normal" users; If you're a moderator you can clearly see everything.
If one wants truly pseudonymous voting, they're free to try out PieFed. See the announcement post for this feature for more details.
-
I understand that if you are exploring on all and so, sometimes some communities you couldn't care less appear on the feed, it's happens all the time to me with sports news and related, but I just block them and move on.
-
Yeah I guess for me I don't really trust any admins. At the end of the day that's a permanent database of user activity which could be passed along to anyone, so ideally the minimum threat surface would be that it exists only on the home instance.
Also, I kind of just don't get the point of obfuscating for some and not others unless there are some politics going on behind the scenes, which just gives me even more cause for concern. I think this is a killer feature for piefed and really addresses a major concern I have with Lemmy so it is just disheartening to hear that the functionality has been nerfed for seemingly no good reason.
-
I hear ya. There was quite a bit of back-and-forth about it and we ended up with a compromise. It would be good to have more configurability of this to suit different preferences.
There's a niche out there for a max-privacy instance. No server logs, no email verification, automatic deletion of old content. And if it was running PieFed, no trusted instances set.
Not a niche I want to pursue but someone could.
-
Yeah, that's what I do as well. Seems much nicer than hurting their community by just randomly downvoting everything I don't want to see.
-
Do you have a link to any discussions on this? I have browsed local posts on piefed.social but can't find it. I'd be curious to see more context in support of the trusted instance concept.
-
Check this out for general background discussion https://piefed.social/post/205362. The idea to differentiate by trusted instances was mine and not discussed there. Pretty sure there was some discussion about it in the Matrix channel which is lost to time.
During the recent roadmap planning one of the potential units of work was to sort all this out https://piefed.social/post/411591 but it didn't garner significant interest and didn't make it through to the final version of the roadmap.
-
Hah, I am all over that first thread already. Also in that second thread. This discussion is getting pretty out of band at this point, but I've actually thought about proper cryptographic solutions to this problem, but it would require modifying activity pub itself. Which is why I'm very much in favor of voting agent anarchy to force the issue.
-
Yeah, let's make things less abstract and talk about real examples.
piefed.social is not sending the real voters out. You think that alone should be grounds to get lemmy.ml (your instance) to defederate them. Am I understanding you correctly?
-
Oh no, I think defederation is only necessary when an instance becomes a problem. Until piefed.social becomes a haven for trolls to manipulate vote counts (which might never happen) then it's fine.
But if a dozen anonymized piefed.social votes start downvoting everything I say because they're monitoring my account then their admins would need to do something about it. If they didn't, I'd want defederation.
-
I've gone to my community and to specific posts, but can't work out how to show downvotes. Can you shed a little light on how to see them please?
