Then down vote it? Isn’t that the point of that button? I’m assuming a big problem with Reddit was they wanted controversial posts seen which took away from the power of down voting but hopefully Lemmy doesn’t? I don’t actually know though
Ahhh, the rallying cry of “just downvote it”. I’d insert the “this your first time?” gif here if I could. Leaving a community to self moderate invariably turns into a popularity contest, and then when one group eventually takes over, an echo chamber usually filled with the same regurgitated spam. “If you don’t like it just downvote it” or it’s reverse “well it has a lot of upvotes, so someone must like it”(welcome to why we have so many bots today…) always ends up catering to the terminally online at the detriment of the average person. People far too often will speak with absolute confidence about things they have never even experienced, but because it’s well formatted, it’s sent to the top. The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect describes this in part.
This site is maybe the worst echo chamber I’ve ever experienced it’s just one that suites my opinions. Hell even if I agree with the echo chamber but I’m the wrong way it gets rejected aggressively. If you think it’s bots then that seems like a more legitimate complaint but if it’s a repost getting enough upvotes and is not weighted for controversy then it’s actually the terminally online people that know every post suffering with their obsession and not the community at large. I completely disagree with that theory
So when I wrote about bots, I was describing them as an effect created by a cause. You went and reversed the two and are thinking I blamed bots.
No.
What I said was that voting based moderation is a popularity contest. An easy way to win popularity contests is to stuff the ballot. On the internet, you can do this with bots. Ergo, the rise in bots all over the Internet is a consequence of our popularity based algorithms and systems. That type of moderation just doesn’t work. But please, keep misunderstanding people and then blaming others. I’m sure that’ll help.
If you’re gonna disagree with my idea, at least get it right. You’re not being downvotted heavily for not agreeing with the hive mind in the right way. You’re being downvotted for lacking reading comprehension and going off on a crazy sounding tangent.
On boy are you dense. I agreed if your theory that bots are to blame is correct you have a legitimate complaint I dispute that and you got really confused and angry saying I don’t understand instead of anything of substance. Do you know what projection is?
Then down vote it? Isn’t that the point of that button? I’m assuming a big problem with Reddit was they wanted controversial posts seen which took away from the power of down voting but hopefully Lemmy doesn’t? I don’t actually know though
Ahhh, the rallying cry of “just downvote it”. I’d insert the “this your first time?” gif here if I could. Leaving a community to self moderate invariably turns into a popularity contest, and then when one group eventually takes over, an echo chamber usually filled with the same regurgitated spam. “If you don’t like it just downvote it” or it’s reverse “well it has a lot of upvotes, so someone must like it”(welcome to why we have so many bots today…) always ends up catering to the terminally online at the detriment of the average person. People far too often will speak with absolute confidence about things they have never even experienced, but because it’s well formatted, it’s sent to the top. The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect describes this in part.
This site is maybe the worst echo chamber I’ve ever experienced it’s just one that suites my opinions. Hell even if I agree with the echo chamber but I’m the wrong way it gets rejected aggressively. If you think it’s bots then that seems like a more legitimate complaint but if it’s a repost getting enough upvotes and is not weighted for controversy then it’s actually the terminally online people that know every post suffering with their obsession and not the community at large. I completely disagree with that theory
So when I wrote about bots, I was describing them as an effect created by a cause. You went and reversed the two and are thinking I blamed bots.
No.
What I said was that voting based moderation is a popularity contest. An easy way to win popularity contests is to stuff the ballot. On the internet, you can do this with bots. Ergo, the rise in bots all over the Internet is a consequence of our popularity based algorithms and systems. That type of moderation just doesn’t work. But please, keep misunderstanding people and then blaming others. I’m sure that’ll help.
If you’re gonna disagree with my idea, at least get it right. You’re not being downvotted heavily for not agreeing with the hive mind in the right way. You’re being downvotted for lacking reading comprehension and going off on a crazy sounding tangent.
I did not misunderstand your bot theory but good to see you prove my “even if I agree” point lmao
You ended your comment saying you completely disagree with me after reiterating what I’d just said as if it were your own thought.
You really need to work on your communication and reading comprehension buddy.
Maybe try a mirror bud
Try reading the whole thing and comprehending it as a complex thought with nuance. I’ll wait. Might take you awhile but I’ll wait.
On boy are you dense. I agreed if your theory that bots are to blame is correct you have a legitimate complaint I dispute that and you got really confused and angry saying I don’t understand instead of anything of substance. Do you know what projection is?