Just wish there were more transparency around counts and content engagement.

I firmly believe most influencer these day were propped up with payed views and botted engagement. Not that lemmy is the same but it all feels so dirty.

  • d00phy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    2 days ago

    This may be overthinking things a bit but…

    I mod a desert of a sub for my alma mater, and I’m pretty sure the same person downvotes everything I post there. No comments, just a single downvote. As a mod I would love to be able to confirm my suspicions, but as a user, I like my votes to be anonymous.

    As a middle ground, perhaps the software itself could auto-mod a bit. If a single user only ever downvotes content from a community, and crosses a certain threshold, they might be soft-banned for some number of days with a note in the mod log to the effect of “negative contribution.” After some amount of time, the ban is automatically lifted. If a community mod notices that the same user keeps getting soft-banned every 30-something days (the soft-ban limit plus some amount of time for it to kick back in), they can decide if they want to ban the user.

    • Kissaki@feddit.orgEnglish
      1·
      23 hours ago

      If communities were standing alone, that idea would work. But communities are hosted and shared on an instance. I find it questionable in that context; it’s a slippery slope.

      Should an instance’s users be able to vote on every community they see in their local feed, or should only community members be able to? Instance admins may decide a community does not violates instance rules, while users may feel like it does not fit the spirit or goals or mentality of an instance.

      It could work if only community members can vote in their communities. Then you could make community-specific decisions and consequences, and the border of instance and community would be separated by definition.