Disabling downvotes by server admins on Lemmy is dumb and does not make any sense.
Disabling downvotes by server admins on Lemmy is dumb and does not make any sense.
By default, Lemmy allows downvotes globally. However, when a server disables downvoting, it is similar to using a feature that is usually reserved for enterprises and very small, non-federated communities.
If a user prefer to not see downvotes, they can disable it by his favourite client settings, but the rest of the community should not miss this functionality for the pleasure of few users.
You're viewing a single thread.
The problem with downvotes in LemmyNSFW was very specific to that instance and its sexual nature. It boils down to the typical user doing the following:
- people use downvotes to signal "I don't want to see this"
- most people want to see naked women, not naked men
- the instance is supposed to be inclusive towards people who want to see either
As a result, content geared towards gay+bi men, hetero+bi women, and plenty non-binary people was consistently downvoted - and it was discouraging genuine OC for those demographics.
It was totally a band-aid measure, mind you. But it kind of worked?
An actual solution for that issue would be to require people to tag their content, and allow posters to pick what they want to see based on those tags. But for that you'd need further improvement of the software.
Sounds like they should have more LGBT
subreddits(communities? Is that the term?)They do, but once you hop into the "local" view you see all of those posts. And the users, instead of blocking those communities as "content that is not relevant for me, but might be for someone else", simply downvote the posts as a knee-jerk reaction.
(Yup, communities. I typically shorten it to comms.)
Same happens to the Christianity community, unfortunately.
Christians trying to make themselves into victims at every chance they can get?
Yup, it's Flax
Are you seriously too moronic to see how your toxicity towards one group of people is no different to other peoples toxicity to other people.
Imagine how u would feel if i said "Palestinians trying to make themselves the victims at every chance they get?" Im guessing that would rightly piss you off? Equallity requires the equal treatment of all groups especially the ones you dont like. If u want a good reason for this there are 6million numbered historical examples.
Cute, you think your scenario is any way comparable to this one!
Its not, and reviving a month old thread to post cringe is sad and pathetic
Hate is hate. I guess ur just a hateful person.
Calling someone sad and pathetic isnt good faith its simply i have no argument and i must scream.
Hate is hate. I guess ur just a hateful person.
Haven't shown any hate here, but nice try
Calling someone sad and pathetic isnt good faith
No shit? I saw you coming in bad faith and replied in line, fucking shocker there innit?
I havnt said a single word in bad faith. You just seem to think its ok to disrespect some people because of their culture.
I havnt said a single word in bad faith
Bullshit
You just seem to think its ok to disrespect some people because of their culture.
Pretty sure I specifically called out flax for being one of those "christians are always the victims" kinds of people, which isn't disrespecting someone based on their culture: it's calling out a concern troll for what they are
You sound like a butthurt Christian desperately hoping you'll find a way to become the victim here, a month later. Sad and pathetic, as said before
😎 Jesus loves you
I know, he pines over me every day as I sit in the prince of darkness' Camp instead
Satan is wayyyyyy cooler to be in the religion of
If you enjoy child rape and every single evil, since you worship the embodiment of evil, then sure, go ahead.
The irony.
I believe child abusers should be imprisoned in solitary for life. This goes for clerics as well. Problem?
Porn should definitely be separated into categories, because there is a lot of content that a lot of people don’t want to see.
Problem with downvotes is people assume they feed the algorithm. They use them to say " I personally don't want to see this". When they're really meant as " this is inappropriate for this community".
I think Lemmy needs to create an algorithm that would help with downloads acting as expected. And then allow people to flag separately if something is not appropriate for a community.
It's simpler just to say "androphiles"
An actual solution for that issue would be to require people to tag their content, and allow posters to pick what they want to see based on those tags. But for that you’d need further improvement of the software.
I would argue the actual solution is to curate your feed by subscribing to communities you enjoy and "unsubscribing" from the ones. You can even create your home (or whatever the subscribed feed is called) feed for your "finer" taste and then block communities you don't want to see in the "All" feed.
That's how I've set up my Lemmy. I have my home feed for niche communities that generally don't end up in the all feed, and for general news I have the All feed where I've selectively blocked out communities I really don't care about. Ideally I would like to set up multiple feed because there are some communities that are so small they don't end up in my home feed either. I would need a separate feed for the extra niche communities so I could participate in them and help them grow larger.
While a tag system could achieve something similar I feel like tags would probably be more annoying to use because you'll be at the mercy of whomever sets the tag. If you look at how people use tags on Steam the tags can easily overreach. I had blocked sexual content tag on Steam to get rid of sex games, and it blocked Baldur's Gate 3. Technically Baldur's gate 3 contains sexual content but there's a world of difference between an RPG with sexual content and an actual porn game. I think Valve added some other way to filter out adult games so now I use that and I don't even bother with tags.
Frankly I also browse by "Subscribed". However that is not an actual solution for the problem, unless you have a sensible way to encourage/force other people to do it.
Multiple feeds (a la multireddits) is a great idea that pops up often. I hope that the devs are at least considering it.
While a tag system could achieve something similar I feel like tags would probably be more annoying to use because you’ll be at the mercy of whomever sets the tag.
The solution doesn't need to be perfect to be useful. So even if posts within a grey area get tagged in a way that reaches a wider audience than they're supposed to,, it's fine.
Frankly I also browse by "Subscribed". However that is not an actual solution for the problem, unless you have a sensible way to encourage/force other people to do it.
What do you mean? People already post things in the correct community and moderators make sure wrong posts get removed. My suggestion is that people should make use of that by curating what communities are they see or don't want to see. There's no need to encourage/force other people to do anything, they're already doing it.
The solution doesn't need to be perfect to be useful. So even if posts within a grey area get tagged in a way that reaches a wider audience than they're supposed to,, it's fine.
First of all, wouldn't the tag system need other people to be encouraged/forced to do it? Secondly, if the tagged grey area posts reach a wider audience then it doesn't solve the problem because the problem is that people don't want to see specific posts in their feed. Posts in the grey area can contain posts people don't want to see. If the unwanted posts still end up in their feeds then the problem isn't solved. The tags should be used to exclude posts not be used to include posts.
I mean that what you call "the solution" (to curate one's feed) already exists and did not solve the problem for the platform as a whole, as attested by the OP. Because regardless of what you or me think that people "should" do, they're still browsing by "All" (that's fine) and then downvoting content geared towards other audiences (that is not fine).
And it is not just porn; you see the exact same issue with content in other languages. Same deal: the resource exists (you can set up the language of your content, as well as the ones that you want to see) and people still don't use it.
You're suggesting that people should make use of that resource, but our suggestions mean nothing if people won't follow them. We do need a way to at least encourage the usage of those resources, and discourage this idiotic "this content is not made for ME! ME! ME!, how do they dare? Downvoting time!" tendency.
Secondly, if the tagged grey area posts reach a wider audience then it doesn’t solve the problem because the problem is that people don’t want to see specific posts in their feed.
It might not solve the problem but it does alleviate it. There's a big difference between seeing 10% or 50% of irrelevant content.
But tags have the exact same issue as the current solution, which is that someone has to set up what tags the user wants to see and the only one who can set them up is the user itself. The current solution already does a better job at solving the problem than tags would and people don't use it. If the people don't use the current solution why would they use tags? Why not just improve the current solution so people would use it?
This is a load of horse shit. If something gets downvoted cos its xyz and all xyz content gets downvoted but the xyz content is in a community of xyz. Then the net effect is zero.
Also i swear to god the admins are fucking with me by unblocking the people and communities ive blocked previously.
If u cant handle a couple downvotes then u probably shouldnt be making porn.
This is a load of horse shit. If something gets downvoted cos its xyz and all xyz content gets downvoted but the xyz content is in a community of xyz. Then the net effect is zero.
People don't browse only by "subscribed", nor they know magically all communities with their desired content. As such no, the net effect is not zero because the downvotes still affect the visibility of the whole community, reducing its discoverability and of the content within it.
Also i swear to god the admins are fucking with me by unblocking the people and communities ive blocked previously.
That's likely a bug, and irrelevant in this discussion.
If u cant handle a couple downvotes then u probably shouldnt be making porn.
True but irrelevant. Specially because what I'm saying does not apply just to porn, it applies to every bloody type of original content, SFW or not. And we definitively do not need reasons to discourage OC production here.
Supply demand is king either ignore the downvotes or find a new target market. I dont recon its worked at all its just means people will block the accounts meaning they are memory holed perminantly.
Supply demand is king
No, it is not. Smithsonian economics don't even work here, due to the network effect causing a vicious cycle: less visibility due to downvotes → lower perceived supply → users look for that content outside Lemmy → less demand for that content → lower actual supply.
And in this case it's really bad, because Lemmy is supposed to be welcoming to gay people too, not just heterosexual men like me.
I dont recon its worked at all its just means people will block the accounts meaning they are memory holed perminantly.
They block the communities instead, as it's easier than blocking individual posters. And, frankly, it's a better approach than downvoting the content as it discourages it from being shared.
Lemmy is the ultimate embodiment of a free market. U dont think thats even a valid argument if that content is downvoted communities dedicated to it will be equally downvoted. Welcoming should not mean making the experience for the majority significantly worse simply to avoid a minority having to search a little harder.
Blocking communities doesnt work entirely since u end up with fat chicks and dicks in communities that arent specificly dedicated to either.
Lemmy is the ultimate embodiment of a free market.
Certain tools inspire certain behaviors. In other words, all you have is a hammer... Ironically, that's also a reason commercial platforms resist implementing negative votes.
Changing the tool to better suite it's purpose is an option, but decentralized networks are inherently resistant to such changes. With the backlog of bugs and missing features this ecosystem has, the developers would not be amused if somebody came up with a new tagging or filtering system.
Lemmy is the ultimate embodiment of a free market. [...]
Yet another dumb claim piled up over another. At this point I'm not wasting my time with this, I'll facepalm at this crap and move on to the main point.
Blocking communities doesnt work entirely since u end up with fat chicks and dicks in communities that arent specificly dedicated to either.
Nirvana fallacy. People who expect perfect and all-encompassing solutions for problems should take a reality check.
The fediverse is a perfect metaphor for a free market please explain how it isnt.
I dont expect perfect solutions thats why downvotes to solve the problems that blocking cant exists. Thx for proving my point
Easy: Votes are an unlimited resource because a user can vote on as many posts as they want and a person can create basically unlimited user accounts, thus the fediverse would be like a market where everyone can create money out of thin air, defeating the purpose of having a market at all.
The fediverse would be more like a market if users had to "earn" votes by posting stuff other people vote on then "spend" those votes on other people's posts. Then votes would be a limited resource that would make sense to apply market principles to.
Bitcoins are an unlimited resource you can mine infinitely many of them. Both votes and bitcoins are raw resources that can be "mined" (earned) infinitely at a given rate by utilising the base resources time, compute, and internet.
U spend ur time compute internet and attention to earn votes that u spend on posts to affect the marketplace of ideas.
Wrong, Bitcoins are mined at a fixed rate that decreases over time until the supply reaches 21 million, then there will be no new Bitcoins created: https://crypto.com/bitcoin/how-many-bitcoins-are-there
Yes, most people here probably know that. But it's really got nothing to do with the actual point being made. You're just declining to engage. Of course, the idea you're declining to engage with is kind of dumb, so one wonders why you didn't just walk away.