if a legit user gets flagged as toxic, there’s no other consequence besides the warning, that doesn’t prevent anything from being seen.

Yet

About my confidence: you’re not on Piefed, so you don’t experience the system as a user. If you give it a try, I’m quite sure you’ll see it works as intended 80-90% of the time.

And again, if a legit user gets flagged as toxic, there’s no other consequence besides the warning, that doesn’t prevent anything from being seen.

Like IRL, any truly gratifying social function includes the possibility of heated debate and some real feelings exchanged, real things happening outside your comfort zone, not politeness theater that reassures us we are the betters in this society. And that’s all to common thinking nowadays, that we are agreeable and therfore the best thing you can be, like thats what polite type dicks/assholes are honestly. And there’s a reason you turn to online spaces to validate yourselves. Because people dont actually like you enough IRL. And you want to get social stuff done here. Likely to just exchange prefab thinking which is OK. But they want to moderate Piefed to keep it ‘whitewashed’ and that’s insulting to human intelligence and experience IMHO

Its not your dinner party just because its your server. And if that’s why you made it. Then I think that’s self-centered, self-masturbatory and generally uncool shit instead the awesome federated space filled with reasonably unfiltered ideas that it was supposed to have been/could have been.

Semi moderated spaces are wonderful. If its not actually bad don’t worry about it type deal. Learn to ignore, filter and move on. Just like real life. Ive reported like 3 posts total and I’ve had death threats levied and some insane people saying some intentionally horrible shit. OK, oh well, learned some shit about myself or something outside, got stronger, moved on a better more capable person. Part of life. Its not going away because you removed it from the public forum. I feel like unless its really bad. It should be witnessed. Someone got hurt by that? How much? Really? Or is it just playing into some newfound posturing contest type thing? Because that just creates a new power structure, one where to be hurt tactically in order to invalidate or validate the discussion accordingly is used and abused. Overprotection comes with serious downsides, it feels like people here dont understand this concept. You will NEVER be able to handle or win power over yourself or the world it by hiding away from what it is.

So I appreciate the clarity but I still don’t approve of the sentiment and frankly neither should you. It alienates like 50 percent of the world and all the contributions negative and inflammatory people can make (which is plenty, truly.)

Ive needed people to hammer into me, call me on my bullshit, and not elate just cause its perceptually harmful to my wellbeing. That’s the point. It hurt. I have to adjust or accept being a plaything for those that will do that for whatever reasons. And that’s no way to conduct yourself honestly. And many others will need that to grow and overcome things (trauma bullshit, groupthink bs, propaganda bs et al.)

I understand wanting to make safe space for people to be in but GYATT DAMN were past the point of that utility and that being good when you start talking about making some voices (negative ones, less visible by DESIGN)

People need to be able to make social mistakes and/or be assholes and get called on it and to leave it up as an example, not simply delete it and def not hide away from that all the time. Its helpful if people can learn to perceive things like that and toughen up so that the world doesn’t hurt us as much and we can contribute better as a member of civilization. Negative people are part of the world and have plenty to say btw. I LOVE to see those kinds of comments so this is strait bs from that POV. You can jerk off each other as much as you want but thats still gonna be true at the end of the day, and probably forever.

Guess its time to plan out a proper server and compete at that level. Cause this circlejerking shit is just a bit too like Reddit. And I have the technical skill, I just don’t want to have to put in that high a level of effort to wake people up to that I guess.

Sort of sorry for the essay here. Sort of not. Obviously felt it was necessary. Not all positivity is actually good positivity. And I think negative people and down voters should be equal on their own merits (tho with moderating decisions it might be considered it should almost always be by comment as well as context aware. Not just to label them as a “bad person” so your not allowed to be here type groupthinking bullshit) Each comment moderated equally on its own merits. Always and forever. (unless specifically necessary due to some incredibly remarkable circumstance and even then be SUPER careful because otherwise you miss out on the other HALF the world that will still impact your everyday life whether you understand it/that, or witness it/that, or not.

Especially for the younger ones still trying to figure it out, its better to understand wtf is going on out there then to be caught by surprise or be unable to participate in the world because they can’t handle it as a result of this cowardice. Its not doing the world any favors. Keep the actual bots out. Leave the negativity in as long as its not an actual hazard.

I wish I had your confidence in it being positive

It’s the rationale many instances used to defederate hexbear. (Even though iirc hexbear disables downvotes, so they’re defederated for users mass posting, usually that hogshit image, instead of mass voting.) It wasn’t puppets or bot accounts at any rate.

But then there’s repost communities where users share comments (especially in places they or their audience is banned from) or DMs for a group response.

Not to mention the whole ‘block and downvote all .ml on sight’ mentality. But hopefully that might be something this tool could catch.

But I can’t help but note that the system seems intentionally blind to targeted harassment, which can be a source, if not cause, of bad faith accounts. (And likely those need different approaches since those are also niche cases themselves.)

If you mean using puppet accounts to massively downvote someone, that’s also tracked, but with another tool

Most of the time though the user just has a deeply downvoted argument but otherwise normal and/or low engagement posts, so they wouldn’t be flagged by this.

So I understand that it can save some time with some niche cases.

But I can’t help but note that the system seems intentionally blind to targeted harassment, which can be a source, if not cause, of bad faith accounts. (And likely those need different approaches since those are also niche cases themselves.)

And maybe it’s all just because of my instance’s Local feed, so that’s what I see as a prominent problem on Lemmy.

So with that example: what do the flags do that the content of their posts don’t already communicate?

It warns other users that this commenter may be a bad faith user / troll.

Usually when I encounter a troll, I check their profile to see if they are indeed a troll. The warning saves some time on that, and is accurate the vast majority of the time.

Downvotes given are only actions from the user, no interaction from the Piefed dev.

Downvotes received is feedback from other users, no interaction from the Piefed dev either.

allowing them to do the worst parts of reddit in the fediverse.

Trolls are already around, as you pointed out in another comment. I would rather have a tool that works 80% of the time to detect trolls than no tools at all.

Because it’s treated differently in piefed but still an example of how the software is designed to punish those who do not act the way the creator wants.

If the part after the but is ignored sure. But that part is also the issue so .

The point is the tools of piefed will amply the bad actors by allowing them to do the worst parts of reddit in the fediverse.

The general system of up/downvotes seems to be doing its job quite as intended: their views appear routinely unpopular and there’s a seemingly pretty strong community consensus around that.

It looks like their threads have comments that solidly and clearly refute the garbage manosphere stuff. For some people it’s the opportunity to express a refutation of it publicly and directly. The public viewer gets to read those responses too.

So with that example: what do the flags do that the content of their posts don’t already communicate?

While we are talking, this is the kind of users who gets the two warnings: https://piefed.zip/u/grimreaper@sopuli.xyz

Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.

Right, though it’s a mitigating factor. I guess there’s something I don’t know about piefed: Lemmy comments all have a default upvote from the user that makes it. But it can be revoked by the user. Does Piefed work the same way? My thought only applies if that’s the case.

Because it’s treated differently in piefed but

Then Piefed is fine?

Especially with instances that love to keep those types around, see world and shit just works.

Instances who tolerate bad faith trolls or bad actors are going to do so with or without tools such as Piefed’s.

Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?

In my experience, it is almost always the case, but I said usually in case someone came up with a very unique situation.

Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.

Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.

Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?

Karma farming is an issue when users can see karma as an absolute value. It’s not possible on Piefed, which only shows a percentage of attitude (downvotes given, visible to everyone: https://piefed.zip/u/Blaze ) and reputation (downvotes received, visible only to admins)

giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity

Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?

Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.

Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?