Some will cheer, some will be mildly disappointed. But I'm out, I think.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 114 points 4 months ago

but who will explain all the history memes

  • source
  • [–] 66 points 4 months ago (68 children)

    I think I might be out of the loop. What's happening...?

  • source
  • hideshow 68 child comments
  • [–] 89 points 4 months ago (67 children)

    There is a new rule metering the number of votes that can be cast by a user. You can see yours on your profile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 67 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 4 months ago* (41 children)

    That's.... really weird.

    On the surface the reasoning behind it makes sense, but there is also something about it (that I can't quite point out yet) that rubs me the wrong way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 108 points 4 months ago (39 children)

    It doesn't make sense though. It was presented as this unequal distribution thing where a few users cast the most amount of votes, but that really doesn't matter because each user still only gets one vote per post or comment. No one's opinion is outsized or disproportionate just because they vote on a lot of things.

    It was really bad statistics from the start. It was framed sorta like wealth disparity, using the same kind of chart, but it's categorically not the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    That sounds like the PieFed admins are just going to make it worse. Now there's going to be first user advantage, with the first comments on a thread getting preferrential treatment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I don't see how. Unless you mean people rationing their votes are less likely to scroll as far down?

    But yeah this place is going to be desolate without pugjesus, and I wonder how many more people are gonna leave once users rationing votes results in content receiving less engagement.

    Overall, just a terrible decision in my opinion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Based on the stats shown in Rimu's post, the monthly average vote count of the top 5000 of prolific voters was 1142, and among the top 147 prolific voters, their average monthly was 6868.

    With a 240 daily limit, that comes out to 7200 votes per month, which is already above the average of the most prolific voters.

    Those 147 top voters may be effected if they only voted sporadically throughout the month (so they vote like, 500 one day and 700 another, but with some rest days of no voting in-between), and those posting above that average who definitely would be effected appear to only total about 60 people.

    So for 99% of the userbase, they would not need to consider rationing votes at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Ok, so in the announcement post they talk about mostly technical reasons for this. But from the linked post it does in fact sound like the aim is to throttle most active members because they have too much influence?

    This is what rubbed me the wrong way and I just couldn't figure out why. We all have one upvote to give, some people just give it way more of them - so in comes the great equalizer in the form of the daily quota.

    I hope you pardon my exagerated metaphor, but this is like limiting free speech for journalists, because they excercise the right of free speech way more than others.

    It's "just" votes so I'm hesitant to call this censorship but... this does feel like a first step. Will there be daily post quotas too because some people post more than others?

    πŸ’― 1
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (34 children)

    but that really doesn’t matter because each user still only gets one vote per post or comment.

    where does the policy change actually impact the user then? I guess at maximum we can't upvote more that 240 things a day (comment or post). I think that's more than the vast majority of users do per day, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago

    The point isn't about how many users are likely to hit the daily limit, the point is how having a daily limit might cause people to start rationing their votes. Instead of doling them out however they see fit, they might start thinking "hmm, but is this worth spending a vote on?"

    Overall, that can have a chilling effect on voting in general, lowering engagement and reducing the motivation to post (if you only get a handful of upvotes on each post, it might feel "dead" and seem to have no point. It's encouraging to see several dozen users like your post). And that can expand to a chilling effect on posting.

    Also, if someone has a disability or is recovering from illness or surgery then they're more likely to spend more time on here, meaning they're more likely to reach the vote quota. This disproportionally impacts them.

    Sure, 240 a day is high, but it's not unreasonable for a human to reach, and it's nowhere near "obvious bot" territory.

    Based on the charts rimu shared, there are so few users who actually reach "obvious bot" territory that it's impossible for them to not highlight themselves, and they should be easy enough to handle on a case-by-case basis. We're talking less than 10 accounts. Admins can look at each one to examine their activity, and if they're a bot they can remove the account.

    There's no reason to limit people's votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (32 children)

    i guess it's an anti-botting measure where they can't distinguish a power user from an automated system?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    There are so few accounts that have that much activity on them that admins could easily handle them on a case-by-case basis.

    This doesn't get rid of the bot accounts, it only limits their voting activity like everyone elses, which will make them harder to detect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (29 children)

    I get that whilst also dancing on the idea that perhaps a power user shouldn't post so much? This is decentralized social media, there really shouldn't be an aim to maximise here: You post, you like, you don't like.

    If the aim is to farm engagement and thus a "power user" is born, then I suspect their motives or at least implore them to touch grass more often.

    I'm making a lot of judgements here, and probably deserve any downvotes I get here - but if your posting habits are indistinguishable from a bot, then question your posting habits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (25 children)

    Farming engagement has no incentive. It can't be monetized here, there's no karma. There would be no point.

    Power users on the fediverse aren't doing it for personal gain, they're doing it to enrich the fediverse and make it a more attractive alternative to corporate social media.

    We see so many complaints that it's dead here, or there aren't enough communities, or it's hard to find the right community for something, or if the community exists it might be dead. That's a lot of people's rationale for not switching from reddit.

    Power users here are trying to fix that. It's an enormous task and more than a single user or a handful of users can do, but they're doing their part and in many cases carrying more than their share of the burden. This change is kind of a slap in the face to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (24 children)

    Farming engagement has no incentive.

    I'm not so sure as I recall a power user on Reddit who consistently hit the front page as he figured out how to engage users (best times to post, which topics, phrasing, secondary accounts for initial boost). I forget his name, but he effectively was researching how to grab attention and then I think even went to marketing firms with his research on his viral methods.

    At the time I recall people saying to me "it's just karma, it has no value" but attention was the value, and attention is something that companies can and will pay money for. Lemmy is not necesarily immune to this gamification of content

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (23 children)

    Reddit is different for multiple reasons.

    It has karma, the fediverse doesn't.

    It has millions of daily users, the fediverse doesn't.

    It's a publicly traded company with a profit motive, the fediverse isn't.

    It allows paid advertisements, the fediverse doesn't.

    There's therefore a monetary incentive to farming karma on reddit, there isn't on the fediverse.

    Some people farm karma on reddit accounts just to sell them to advertisers or propagandists. This wouldn't work on the fediverse for the above reasons, and because there's no market for it for the same reasons.

    Reddit feeds are governed by closed-source algorithms designed by a centralized company, fediverse feeds are not.

    And lastly, you said yourself that the guy used secondary accounts to boost himself. This is voting abuse and should be dealt with whenever it can be positively identified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (22 children)

    Reddit wasn't initially different though is my point -- it wasn't publicly traded, it had trickles of users initially, and didn't have adverts. Hell, it popularized the canary reporting as part of its yearly ethics report.

    Some feddit instances are more popular than others, and once they gain traction amongst the masses, might be rife for viral media targeting. Yes, the defederated architecture in theory prevents against that, but if one server swallows up all the users by offering something the others can't, then that somewhat easy balance between instances might get upset

    Who knows what the future holds, but we've seen what happened to other sites and it would be epitome of hubris to believe it couldn't happen here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 4 months ago (21 children)

    But would restricting the votes of a single user really be, in any way, a remedy to that theoretical problem? Much less restricting them now, when the issue on the Fediverse is largely not enough activity, not excessive artificial activity? And specifically targeting users that are not creating artificial activity, but simply those who are creating 'too much' activity?

    Rimu himself said that he didn't think that the top voters he was concerned with were bots or coordinated in any way. He just thought they were voting too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    I'd argue that activity from a single user to overcome the sleepy shortcomings of other users just sways the fediverse overall towards that single user's preferences and beliefs. This might give a false idea of what the fediverse is actually about, as the silent majority are somewhat out-shouted by a vocal minority.

    Yes it's stimulating and interesting, but I wouldn't describe it as balanced. I don't know what Rimu's motives are, but they do seem fairer w.r.t to the more silent users, even if those users may never post

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    Is your point seriously that the people who aren't active don't influence the the fediverse as much as people who are?

    That's really weird, and if you just think about that for a minute you should see why that's weird.

    Like, imagine there's an election and the board of elections was suddenly like "welp, according to this chart, a lot of registered voters don't regularly vote, so it's unfair to let some voters who vote in every election have a disproportionate impact on the election results. Therefore, we're canceling voting."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

    if a minority of 40% can dictate an election outcome over the remaining 60%, some of whom didn't vote - that's not democracy, that's First-Past-The-Post, and I don't need to bring up british politics to explain why that doesn't work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    You don't have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.

    But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That's a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (7 children)

    Braindead right-wingers consistently vote to deregulate markets and industries they deem to be unfair, just to them, often against their own interests. I'm advocating for regulation for all. Perhaps a sanity check on your own perceived political beliefs might end this discussion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Yes, you're totally right, as long as we restrict everyone's voting rights, then it'll be fair! /s

    You're advocating for stupid and unnecessary regulations simply because you think you won't personally be affected by it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    I welcome any invitation to touch grass. I encourage you to do the same, and perhaps look up the definition of equitable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    This has nothing to do with equity, you dunce. Voting on the fediverse is not a limited resource. Everyone can do it as much or as little as they want. Until now, when there's an arbitrary limit for no reason.

    And if you think the fact that some people don't vote in elections is sufficient justification for taking voting rights away from everyone, then you're frankly an idiot. If that's what you mean by equitable, then that word is functionally meaningless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The silent majority is made up of more than just the lurkers, and I think you know that despite leaning on it and needless personal attacks to drive your argument

    I am curious though now: Attention is a limited resource, you have bots and even some users dominating that resource. How would you go about making it fairer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    "Attention is a limited resource"

    What units do you measure that in? Minutes/hours? Everyone has the same amount of it each day, and everyone rations their own attention however they see fit. One person spending hours on the fediverse and upvoting hundreds of posts isn't taking anything away from someone who spends minutes on it and upvotes a dozen.

    Whatever you mean by "silent majority", it doesn't matter. You're missing the point that nothing is being taken away from them when someone else votes more than they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Let's go with minutes per session, and let's go with majority of users interacting with their front page which is their first point of entry and is set to "Hot". You're certain that one person spending hours upvoting hundreds of posts won't skew what other users see in their browsing period? You're sure that their attention isn't now being diverted elsewhere?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Yes, because that user can still only vote on each post one time. It doesn't skew anything. Either way, for a post to get 100+ upvotes, it requires 100+ users to upvote it, so nothing is going to reach the all feed unless a significant number of users vote on it, and no one single user has a disproportionate impact on that even if they vote on hundreds or thousands of posts.

    It's like voting down the ballot when some people only vote for president and governor. It's perfectly fair; they had the same opportunity you did and chose to only vote on two spots. You didn't get an extra vote to cast on any given seat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Man, you comment far more than the average user, much less the 'silent majority'. The average user doesn't upvote much; they comment even less. Would it be 'fairer' for your comments to be limited? After all, you're a 'vocal minority' whose activity is swaying the Fediverse. Wouldn't it be 'fairer' if you participated less, regardless of the fact that your participation does not actually consume (meaningfully) limited resources or space?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Personally, I comment far more than I vote and I tend to agree with Rimu that a comment is far more engaging than a vote is. Still, I like receiving as many votes as I can when I do comment or post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    In general, I agree that a comment usually means more than a vote.

    But that's not really the question here - the question here is whether restricting voting because some people vote 'too much' is in any way a reasonable point of view for an instance on the Threadiverse. As Rimu himself pointed out, the primary targets of this are ten 'top' voters, who are hardly going to be placing more comments to 'replace' their lost votes.

    Assuming, of course, comments aren't next to be limited, since that's also an 'outsized influence' from a 'small minority'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Yeah, at best you could frame this as an experiment in trying to keep things small. The conflicting reasoning given makes me think there wasn’t a terrible amount of forethought to this decision and perhaps it was guided more by a strong hunch.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children)

    There are levels to it, I agree -- and your infamy outbounds my near non-existence, as does mine to those who merely lurk -- but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it. I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.

    Edit: Just to say - I greatly value the historical topics you post and the detail you go to in your posts. I feel like the quality of your posts can still happily thrive, even if the quantity is less than what you'd prefer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it.

    Again, your commenting far outstrips that of a semi-active user. Perhaps you should be advocating for a comment limit based on the average user as well.

    You should probably advocate for a post limit based on the average poster too. Wouldn't want it to be unfair, after all. And posts are MUCH more visible than votes or comments.

    I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.

    It was geared towards the muzzling of ten 'top' users (10, mind you, is some ~2% of the daily users of Piefed.social to begin with), but under the presumption that their votes are evenly spread out, day-by-day.

    In reality, most people aren't on the Fediverse every day - they come in, participate in a discussion or three, and then might not be back for a few days. So it's easy to hit the limit, as it is a daily limit, simply by being active in a discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Whilst I sense the sarcasm of your tone, I do largely agree that post and comment caps would likely dampen the effect of overactive subs (filtering out political posts by curating my subscriptions is a chore...)

    I do agree that a daily limit might be too much, as activity does seem to be sporadic as you say. A weekly limit could work though.

    Anyway, to get to the crux of it: I'd be sad if you leave, but not sad if you posted a little less

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago

    Whilst I sense the sarcasm of your tone, I do largely agree that post and comment caps would likely dampen the effect of overactive subs (filtering out political posts by curating my subscriptions is a chore…)

    ... most of those political posts aren't done by the same people. They're 'overactive' because many Fediverse users are heavily political. So limiting the number of individual user posts or comments would do jack shit for that.

    Anyway, to get to the crux of it: I’d be sad if you leave, but not sad if you posted a little less

    Sorry that I want to participate in a community on my own terms. You won't have to worry about that frightening level of autonomy from me on here anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 9 points 4 months ago*

    That's the thing - Rimu openly admits that he doesn't think that the power voters are bots. The issue isn't distinguishing us. It's just that Rimu doesn't like so many votes being cast by so few users. Shit man, if I encounter two active discussions in a day (admittedly not a daily occurrence on the sometimes-sleepy Fediverse), I'll be close to hitting the 240 limit simply by having an opinion on the majority of comments.

    Shit, my vote quota is half-used-up today just from this comment section. I haven't even posted or browsed anything else.

    As someone with a laundry list of physical and mental ailments, my 'touching grass' time is extremely limit, and general I reserve the monumental effort there for important issues - like keeping up with the social events of my actual friends, or participating in local politics in my increasingly-fucked-and-fascist country. "Touch grass, it's more fun than shitposting about history!" doesn't really apply for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    All social media pretty much operates on a 90/9/1 division. Only 1% of users actively post. Only a fraction of that 1% are power users like PugJesus. Killing power users won't accomplish a different division of labour where more people post, it will only accomplish killing the ecosystem as a whole.

    You thought the Fediverse was dead now? Wait until the power users disappear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    This is what I'm saying. Posting/voting isn't a limited resource that can be distributed unfairly. People do it or don't do it as much or as little as they want. Why restrict that on an ecosystem that you want to grow?

    If the issue is compute, or resources to run the compute, or admins to maintain the compute environments, then focusing on those issues would be better. Ask for donations to add a new server, encourage people who can to set up their own servers to distribute the load, request that more people play an active role as admins. But restricting engagement/activity of your users sounds like the beginning of the end of your ecosystem...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Wait, like total votes ever? Like you hit it and you can never vote again?? 😭

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    No, just over a set period of time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    Ohhh, that's way more tolerable! Thanks for letting me know, got worried there lol.

    I think it was YouTube back in the day that used to have a max number of total likes per account? After which, it would appear as if liking worked from your end, but it didn't actually do anything on the backend. I was afraid we had one of those situations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    youtube still has a limit on upvotes, i am pretty sure it's 5000. once you have 5k they remove your oldest ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (18 children)

    WHAT?!*
    Mate, who the hell cares about minor shizzle like that. Are you serious...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    The combination of the irritation (being unable to upvote replies to your own material being particularly grating) and what it suggests about the future of the instance.

    I actually planned on continuing to post as-usual (upvoting with alts, annoying as that would be) after I discovered it, but when the reasoning came out I knew it was the canary in the coal mine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (16 children)

    But... it was about a cap for those who chronically abused such..?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    Man, I literally hit the cap before it was even announced. I went to the Matrix channel, confused as hell, and got told it was intentional.

    The cap is 240 votes. I almost hit the cap just upvoting most of the comments here yesterday. If I participated in any real discussions outside of my own comms, I would almost certainly hit the daily cap on that given day.

    The issue was not abuse, and Rimu didn't say it was abuse in that sense. The issue was always that Rimu doesn't think that a small minority should be more active in participating on here than the majority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    Sorry about my original reply on this one, mate. It sucked.

    The cap is 240 votes. I almost hit the cap just upvoting most of the comments here yesterday. If I participated in any real discussions outside of my own comms, I would almost certainly hit the daily cap on that given day.

    Damn, I certainly can't imagine voting 240x in a single day. There might remotely be that number of opportunities in my subscribed stream, but that would be like me forming an opinion upon every-goldurn thing that I possibly saw in that day. And beyond, really?

    I mean, sure I suspect I'm like you and others, giving a friendly updoot upon loads of stuff that I was only neutral upon, but it was for the 'good' of the FV, but... 240x per day, y'all?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Damn, I certainly can’t imagine voting 240x in a single day. There might remotely be that number of opportunities in my subscribed stream, but that would be like me forming an opinion upon every-goldurn thing that I possibly saw in that day. And beyond, really?

    There are 303 comments in this post alone. If I have an opinion on 2/3s of them, I'm almost at the cap.

    ~300 comment posts are not the norm on the Fediverse, but I see a fair number of ~80 comment posts. If I run across two or three of them, suddenly I would have very few other opportunities to upvote.

    Considering, on top of that, I post quite a bit and get a fair number of comments on each (I had ~90 comment replies to my posts on a pretty normal day's output on HistoryMemes alone), it doesn't take much browsing to hit 240 votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Alright, you're right.
    I'd forgotten about the post / comment type of vote.
    Yes, of course you're right.
    (altho that's still a lot voting, mate!!)

    I wonder... is there a technical difference upon such votes across ActivityPub/Fediverse?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (10 children)

    Rimu doesn’t think that a small minority should be more active in participating on here than the majority.

    So it was a massive outrage, not worthy of the dev's time to at least offer an explanation, and yet one more example of the right-wing dev / runner-path. Really?

    All this on their own time, with hundreds of their free hours known and logged..?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    So it was a massive outrage, not worthy of the dev’s time to at least offer an explanation, and yet one more example of the right-wing dev / runner-path. Really?

    What?

    At no point did I say that Rimu was right-wing in any sense or say that he shouldn't have offered an explanation?

    This is a shitty administration decision, it will have shitty effects on the instance long-term, and, especially, it affects me, personally, in a shitty way that I'm not willing to put up with. That's it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    it affects me, personally, in a shitty way that I’m not willing to put up with.

    Okay, sorry if I misunderstood.
    But, I guess I just... don't understand why the PF dev experimenting with voter caps is such a major issue?!

    This is easily the most baffling reaction I've ever seen across the Fediverse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 4 months ago* (7 children)
    1. Because it has a bizarre, but coherent, justification that suggests outright hostility towards 'power users'.

    2. Because it was dropped suddenly, without warning or prior suggestion that it was in any way incoming, to the point where other Piefed instance admins were surprised by its introduction (as an opt-out feature, not opt-in).

    3. Because it enshittifies the user experience of active accounts for no real gain. Shit, man, several users here, in this very thread, hit the vote limit. The ones who are on non-Piefed.social accounts probably won't realize that their subsequent votes aren't being counted by Piefed.social because they 'voted too much'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Thanks!
    (pardon, I've been... more out of it than usual, recently)
    (like, emergency room out of it, haha)

    1. Huh. Are we really defining "power users" as ones who vote a whole bunch every day? Because I'd never in a million years chance on that angle.

    2. Here I profess ignorance, as I was unaware if there was an announcement schedule for upcoming features. Actually that sounds good, in theory. Get some early-feedback and such.

    3. That's not quite true as I understand it. No, I do believe the changes directly help with the stated goals of keeping down vote-brigading / botting and such. That's some important shizzle that needs to happen no matter the implementation.

    For sure I didn't realise that some here hit their vote limit, but what are the metrics on that? Is it maybe better for the cap to be lifted in to a sort of zone that meets both requirements? PF as an active project maintained by a single dev (thank you), seems like something at the very least to work with instead of just... yeah.

    PJ, is just possible that you keeping up the unholy pace of contributing amazing content here on a daily basis possibly weared on you over time? Personally I know it's been for me, altho I work in a different format. But three years is a hell of a long time to contribute to a free internet project intended for the public good.

    I have never needed this current break more than I do right now, for a variety of reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Huh. Are we really defining β€œpower users” as ones who vote a whole bunch every day? Because I’d never in a million years chance on that angle.

    Power users are those who use a system a disproportionately large amount. Rimu explicitly said it was because the distribution of activity between the most active users (ten or so of us, if memory serves) and the majority.

    This is not actually unusual in any online community, but it was apparently worth Rimu's ire, even after being advised against it by several people, including a fellow Fediverse admin.

    That’s not quite true as I understand it. No, I do believe the changes directly help with the stated goals of keeping down vote-brigading / botting and such. That’s some important shizzle that needs to happen no matter the implementation.

    Rimu explicitly said that he didn't think that the top ten users who he was targeting were bots or coordinated. Furthermore, as other people have pointed out, it's trivially easy to set up a bot to circumvent the voting limit. The only people this punishes are people who are actually interested in interacting with the Fediverse on one account - in other words, the people least likely to be bots or bad actors.

    For sure I didn’t realise that some here hit their vote limit, but what are the metrics on that?

    I don't know about the metrics, but I noted in my goodbye thread numerous users whose 'vote quota' bars were filled up. Most of them weren't Piefed.social users, so they won't even be aware that their votes are being rejected by Piefed.social. Their vote is shadow-banned, in a sense.

    Is it maybe better for the cap to be lifted in to a sort of zone that meets both requirements?

    What 'other requirement' is there, if the problem was not and has never been botting or bad actors? The only two justifications offered by Rimu have been that it's a 'bad use' of 'the commons' for people to vote so much; and that a small number of users should not make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse's activity.

    PJ, is just possible that you keeping up the unholy pace of contributing amazing content here on a daily basis possibly weared on you over time? Personally I know it’s been for me, altho I work in a different format. But three years is a hell of a long time to contribute to a free internet project intended for the public good.

    No, not at all. Fact is, I miss it terribly, even only a week out. I miss posting much more than voting and browsing, even. But I'm also not going to be half-in and half-out, generating content but stripped of the ability to interact with the content of others on my own terms - terms that I've been interacting on for the past three years, and that has never been a problem - in any instance - until now. "I upvote what I like" is apparently no longer acceptable on Piefed.social, if you're online 'too much'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Dammit, much of this is just over my head, and I want to support you as well as Rimu in order to find a way through.

    But, here-- are you really saying that the whole idea of vote-capping was nothing but a fraud for... who knows what real reasons..?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    Not a 'fraud', in any way. Just a bad decision, and possibly poorly thought out in addition.

    I know nothing about the technical side, though the fact that Rimu pivoted to a different explanation when pressed has me skeptical. But it very well could be that voting uses up some significant amount of 'the commons' in federating votes. I suspect the actual impact is minimal, though, considering that Piefed.social is the only instance that has even broached the issue, so far as I know, in the three years I've been on the Fediverse. And, as mentioned before, it's trivial to 'get around', resulting in the same vote-federation burden as large numbers of votes with one account.

    The other explanation offered by Rimu, which I regard as much more likely, is Rimu's claim that it's in some way unfair for a small number of users to make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse's activity. I take him at his word on this - I think he genuinely believes that. No fraud involved. Just a view that power users are some form of 'influencer' whose activity is undesirable because it 'sways' the community towards the opinions of the most active users.

    Rimu, I suspect, thinks that cutting down the tall poppies will just create a more even distribution. Instead, I suspect, it will either result in the former distribution proportion reasserting itself, just with a lower cap and a lower average (thus requiring another reduction of the cap, to ensure a small number of users don't 'dominate' the activity - repeat ad infinitum, or until the instance is dead); or the 'more even' distribution being significantly lower in general from decreased activity, as the core function of social media - interaction with others - generates more activity from others as a knock-on effect. It's self-feeding.

    Or self-starving, in this case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Well, I'm too weak and sick to try to zoom in with my traditional power-glove diplomacy, so what do you figure you'll do then, mate?

    Oof, I followed you and Blaze to PF.S from Lemm.ee, and now it's yet another bloody-well disaster. This is just a bit much.

    Seriuously, I have so much stuff queued upon in my archives that I was looking to post on your communities as a personal thanks. Really only had 1-2wks left to sort it all, fuckitall.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Well, I’m too weak and sick to try to zoom in with my traditional power-glove diplomacy, so what do you figure you’ll do then, mate?

    As I said in the post.

    I'm leaving. I'm out. This is it for me.

    I just don't have the energy to undertake another instance migration with all my comms.

    I'll go back to doomscrolling Tumblr and playing more games, I suppose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I’m leaving. I’m out. This is it for me.

    Well then fuck my life.
    I cannot tell you how fun & interesting it was trying to add on to your posts and/or provoke questions, accordingly. And you were an amazing sport upon such..!

    I love history and animal facts to death, so of course, please leave your T# address?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 30 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Spectacular how it went from everyone's favorite to an absolute mess.

    Guess that's what happens when software becomes opinionated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Spectacular how it went from everyone's favorite to an absolute mess.

    Idk, unsurprising when they only positive people had was it was different devs. Even the speed of features is no longer holding water considering how poorly it's coded.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 184 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    I don't know who would cheer, you're one of the pillars of this ecosystem as far as I'm concerned and even though I don't say it enough I always appreciate your efforts in keeping so many niche subs fed with constant content.

    I totally get how you're feeling, and I can't blame you for being burned out. You've put in an insane amount of work over the years. I hope you find some time to rest.

    You will be missed, and will be remembered for a long time.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Count yourself lucky lol. I know several and they aren't good people to know. But yes this will definitely make the new feeds a lot lighter. And traffic overall go down. Neither of which are great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Tankies will cheer, he was a big contributor to the TankieJerk comms which memed on and exposed them. He's also frequently posted on MeanwhileOnGrad.

    Basically there are two kinds of Anarchists on the fediverse: PugJesus and fake ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -20 points 4 months ago

    I don’t know who would cheer

    Hi πŸ‘‹

    Tbh makes little difference since I had him blocked, but if he uses the opportunity to finally touch grass, it's a win-win.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 4 months ago*

    This can't be happening

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    Hi I'm new here. I have no idea what's going on!

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    PieFed is another federated threaded forum software like Lemmy, though just within the last week greatly surprised people by switching gears to be less like traditional social media that welcomes lots of engagement. The changes were not announced in advance, not something that can be opted out of (except by migration to another instance, which is what PugJesus is saying he will not consider doing) and are quite unpopular overall.

    None of THAT background stuff will affect you on Lemmy.World, except that you'll see a quieter network overall, especially now that PugJesus is leaving us.

    Overall it is perhaps best to use the Threadiverse not as your sole or possibly even primary social media but as one among several, as this one is struggling (post).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    None of THAT background stuff will affect you on Lemmy.World, except that you’ll see a quieter network overall, especially now that PugJesus is leaving us.

    Honestly not having "all" flooded with memes might leave room for some actual conversations to breathe but also chasing karma on the fediverse is wild

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    True... but why would restricting daily votes deal at all with that issue?

    On PieFed I've used the Topic Areas to segregate things like News & Politics, and most meme communities, away from my Subscribed feed. Each Topic is but a click away where I can see all of it (regardless of community subscription or not), and I kid you not, actual POETRY manages to make it into my feed!!

    So there are other ways to separate memes from other content. Like paid Lemmy 3rd-party apps, or Blaze would use an army of alts, one for each topic area that he wanted to see that day.

    Even worse, if someone like PugJesus would start off each day by voting for popular content like memes and news, and only then switch to niche communities to help then grow (a common enough workflow, than I often follow myself as well?), then chopping off votes after the quota is reached (currently: 240 per day iirc) would have the opposite effect than you say: memes and news would receive a much greater proportion of the votes while the tiny niche communities would receive less.

    I absolutely do not discount the desire to have better sorting capabilities - on THAT I agree with you 100% that it would be nice to reach THAT goal - but the current implementation won't get you there, plus will have many negative consequences besides. Such as reduced funding support for PieFed overall, and more people choosing to use Lemmy or other alternatives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I didn't say anything about votes, you said it would be "quieter" without PugJesus reposting memes, but I think "quiet" is in the ear of the beholder. Some of us prefer quality to artificial activity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Oh yes for sure - beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder. Some people might prefer to spin up an instance and remove all votes from it, preferring to browse solely by community and/or All (related: some might disable only downvotes but retain upvotes). Other people might prefer to disable even comments, preferring to use the Threadiverse as an RSS reader, link aggregator, without any of the pesky social interaction - that's not what I personally want but if someone wants that... then fine, go for it?

    "Quieter" there was a modifier for the previous word "affect" - i.e., how the downstream effects would impact the person being replied to there, not a value judgement but an explanation of noticeable changes.

    I'm perfectly fine with an instance admin tuning their personal instance however they choose - e.g. blocking the major posters in memes and news communities, if they want a lower internet bill and to sort through content how they wish.

    That said, this change in the PieFed software was VERY unexpected, not announced almost at all, not transparent at all, and rolled out by default to impact all upgrades to the v1.7 codebase. PieFed.social is NOT someone's personal instance - it is the very flagship instance of the entire PieFed subset of the Threadiverse. So some level of prior expectations are to be expected to come into play in regards to what settings it will choose to use - especially if those are subject to change with little to no notice, and with such major impacts upon the people who have chosen to use it?

    PugJesus has donated an IMMENSE amount of time to enhance the Threadiverse, and now not only him but many of us are losing hope in not only PieFed but in this entire Threadiverse experiment overall.

    This is quite impactful!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    what you call enhance i call low effort slop that turns away new users BUT to each their own i guess

    copying a jpg and posting it is not a high effort activity I'm sorry it just drowns out other types of content

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That's the spirit!

    Some people want USA politics, others want to go a single fucking minute without having it shoved into our faces, and everywhere in-between.

    It's been so nice that the Threadiverse provides a platform where we can all get along. Though huge major cracks are tearing it apart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    It's not about karma, really. There are other reasons to upvote things. Over on Mastodon/the twitterlike side of fedi, stars/"likes" don't do /anything/ but tell the OP you liked their post, and are used widely as a social thing. (There is a total star count on posts, but stars don't get federated to other servers besides the poster's, so it's only accurate if you actually go to the poster's instance and look there.)

    -- Frost

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 4 months ago

    Hello New Here BarnWolf, good to have you! :)

    PugJesus is a local legend. Loved by many, despised by some, and always good for educating the unwashed masses (me) in history.

    It's gonna be a whole lot more lonely without you, PugJesus, but I'll always suggest to take health and sanity before fame.

    See ya, Space Cowboy! <3

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    PugJesus is on an instance (server) called piefed, which is run by complete idiots, who have now decided that each user can only make x upvotes per day. PugJesus is a very active user, and will almost certainly go over that limit. So they're quitting in protest.

    You will not be affected since you are on a different server.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 4 months ago

    I'm glad I didn't jump over right away. I was going to, and then things started getting weird and uncomfortable with it.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί