Skavau @ Skavau @piefed.social

Posts

923

Comments

293

Joined

5 mo. ago

Moderating

---

It's incredibly helpful and helps cultivate a high-trust culture. On Reddit, many posts get swarmed with downvotes right off the bat, no matter what they are, due to voting anonymity.

It depends. If there's certain types of content you don't like that a community mostly deals in, you downvoting it effectively means you're downvoting almost everything on there - and at that point, it's just little more than a very crude attempt at community vandalism.

The modlogs have already been made public by Rimu due to popular demand.

But also the problem with the Karma features is that they are present on all of them, turning it off in yours doesn't make the issue go away and doesn't prevent people from abusing it the way subreddits abuse Karma scores right now.

What's the issue if most instances don't run with a karma system? So you might get low karma'd in some piefed instances that you don't post from?

Do they? Piefed.world has turned it off.

I don't believe Piefed instances have to run a reputation system though. Piefed.world, I believe, has disabled it.

I should also add that 2 or the accounts I banned literally had no post or comment history despite being active for years. Their only purpose was to downvote.

Every single time. I have yet to see a false positive.

To be fair, the system does (or did - rimu has acknowledged this) immediately identify a new user as "toxic" on the back of a single comment ranked at 0. It does need a higher threshold.

To be clear, some of the things you're complaining about are specific aspects of piefed.social and may not necessarily be the settings instance admins roll with on their own hypothetical piefed.

Rimu has decoupled and changed a lot of the functions from being embedded into piefed as optional, and has changed some of his positions.

I just said to another here in this thread: Downvotes hurt visibility. Downvote trolls can be a problem for small communities trying to build up. I managed to discover the serial downvoters on my old lemm.ee comm and when I banned them (about 4 of them?) it had a huge impact. They didn’t all downvote /everything/ but they downvoted a lot of things, and no contribution. And if they got in early, they could sink new threads. Now, I wouldn't just downvote randoms for occasional downvotes - but if I kept seeing the same names on threads (and they never actually engaged with the community) with no discernable patterns - I might.

Made a huge difference.

Not related to the OP here, but downvote trolls can be a problem for small communities trying to build up. I managed to discover the serial downvoters on my old lemm.ee comm and when I banned them (about 4 of them?) it had a huge impact. They didn’t all downvote /everything/ but they downvoted a lot of things, and no contribution. And if they got in early, they could sink new threads. Now, I wouldn't just ban randoms for occasional downvotes - but if I kept seeing the same names on threads (and they never actually engaged with the community) with no discernable patterns - I might.

Made a huge difference.

I think the core concept of platforms like Reddit and Lemmy can be very valuable but it's executed very badly. There should be multiple independent steps of verifying if someone should get banned and in what way. And probably integrate a good test for joining the community so that it's more likely for people to be rational from the start (that way you don't even have to look at so many potential flags).

Neither of these things are logistically viable for a community site that wants any level of consistent engagement. How do you "verify" whether or not a ban from a community was objectively justified? What "tests" should there be for whether or not someone should be able to interact in a community in the first place?

Piefed and Lemmy can mostly communicate with each other. In any case, you can't really compel Lemmy to update as fast as Piefed is.

There's two factors to this. Lemmy has been slow on developing new features. Eventually people give up despite all the promises. This sort of competition was inevitable, and two - and this cannot be changed - there's a lot of resentment and resistance to using their software for political reasons.

I don't know the details of all decisions lemmy.world instance admins have made, but it seems to me that the #1 instance will always generate the most animosity because it's far more likely than any other instance to find itself in situations where they're pressed to make decisions by their userbase.

Servers with 20% of the users and 10% of the communities, with only like a dozen 'active' communities will simply hardly ever be in that position and generate no meaningful pushback so they'll always look good by comparison. Additionally, even lemmy.world community mods can generate hostility based on decisions they made despite them having nothing to do with the instance management - and since lemmy.world dominates, you're much more likely to be posting in a lemmy.world community.

Depends how interested you are in international content. Netflix has most of that.

Just had a massive post in television@piefed.social

+58 subscribers over the weekend

I would say it's more generically US 'prestige' focused (with some sitcoms) biased. There's a lot of themes and different types of shows within that, many of which are absolutely socially conscious.

I don't think it's possible to ever have a top 100 without bias. This is just measuring critical audience and critic reputation across the major websites.

Well obviously this list is very disproportionately overrepresented by Americans or at least the Anglosphere which very much tilts its results. Mr. Robot by your metric would be an example of this in many ways. I haven't myself watched many of the shows here so I can't know what percentage have non-white leads or focus, and to what percentage they do

I am just wondering if you consider traditional 'male' settings like sci-fi or dystopia content inherently 'male' regardless of the sex of the lead. That was my curiosity regarding Fallout and TLOU.

Women certainly play computer games, but demographically with stuff like TLOU it is much more likely to be male.

I don't know regarding 'minority focused' specifically. What would be an equitable number here in you mind?