**Please use upvotes and downvotes to reflect relevance, not whether you like or dislike a post. If you disagree, share your opinion instead of downvoting. That’s not what downvotes are for. **

I’ve been thinking about a forum built around shared subjects, not popularity.

Spaces and subjects would both work as reusable tags. A space called History could be associated with a History subject, as well as narrower subjects like Ancient History or Oral History. They can share a name without being the same thing. A thread could carry multiple space and subject tags, and both kinds of tags could be reused across the network. Nobody would own “History” as a directory.

There’d be no karma or vote-based ranking. Likes and dislikes could be cosmetic, but they wouldn’t affect scores or visibility. The goal is to avoid vote brigades and keep popularity from being mistaken for quality.

Lemmy uses upvotes and downvotes to score and sort posts, which can create some of the same popularity dynamics as Reddit. This design would try to make thoughtful discussion easier to find by removing that mechanism, though no system can guarantee quality on its own.

Federation would work at two levels. Nodes could choose what to receive, and spaces or subjects could also isolate themselves from selected sources. No one would control what can exist across the whole network, but each node or community could choose what it sees.

I’m also considering optional paid moderators. For the node I host, I’d choose moderators for their ability to judge discussion on its merits, using clear rules rather than popularity or agreement with a majority. Other nodes could choose a different moderation approach. My node’s approach would be merit.

That would need safeguards like public guidelines, explanations for important decisions, and appeals. Judging merit can be subjective, so the process should be open to scrutiny.

It probably wouldn’t appeal to everyone, and that may be fine. I’d rather have a smaller community that understands the ethos than chase growth at any cost.

What problems do you see, especially with moderation, discovery, and preventing communities from becoming echo chambers? Obviously "anti-echo-chamber" and federation don't completely mesh with each other. but the idea here is that one competent node should be enough to carry the network, other nodes exist primarily as backups more so than being communities.

                         FEDERATED NETWORK  
             shared protocol, content, and discovery  
        ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐  
        │                                             │  
   ┌────▼─────┐                                  ┌────▼─────┐  
   │  NODE A  │◄──────── federation ───────────►│  NODE B  │  
   │          │                                  │          │  
   │ Chooses  │                                  │ Chooses  │  
   │ what to  │                                  │ what to  │  
   │ receive  │                                  │ receive  │  
   └────┬─────┘                                  └────┬─────┘  
        └──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┘  
                           │  
                    shared content graph  
                           │  
       ┌───────────────────┼────────────────────┐  
       │                   │                    │  
  ┌────▼─────┐        ┌────▼─────┐         ┌────▼─────┐  
  │  SPACE   │        │  SPACE   │         │  SPACE   │  
  │  History│        │  Books   │         │  Science │  
  └────┬─────┘        └────┬─────┘         └────┬─────┘  
       │                   │                    │  
       │ contains          │ contains           │ contains  
       ▼                   ▼                    ▼  
  ┌──────────┐        ┌──────────┐         ┌──────────┐  
  │  TOPIC   │        │  TOPIC   │         │  TOPIC   │  
  │ History  │        │ Fiction  │         │ Biology  │  
  ├──────────┤        └──────────┘         └──────────┘  
  │Ancient   │  
  │ History  │  
  ├──────────┤  
  │ Oral     │  
  │ History  │  
  └────┬─────┘  
       │  
       │ Topics are reusable tags.  
       │ A space and topic can share a name,  
       │ but they are different things.  
       ▼  
  ┌─────────────────────┐  
  │       THREAD        │  
  │                     │  
  │ Tagged with multiple│  
  │ topics and visible  │  
  │ in relevant spaces │  
  └──────────┬──────────┘  
             │  
       comments and replies  


  FEDERATION AND FILTERING  
  ┌──────────────────────────┐   ┌──────────────────────────┐  
  │ Nodes can choose which   │   │ Topics can choose which   │  
  │ nodes or topics to       │   │ sources to receive from  │  
  │ receive from             │   │ or isolate from           │  
  └──────────────────────────┘   └──────────────────────────┘  

  PARTICIPATION  
  ┌──────────────────────────┐   ┌──────────────────────────┐  
  │ Cosmetic likes/dislikes │   │ No karma or vote-based   │  
  │ do not rank content      │   │ ranking                  │  
  └──────────────────────────┘   └──────────────────────────┘  

  OPTIONAL MODERATION  
  ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  
  │ Nodes choose their moderation approach. The host node   │  
  │ selects paid moderators for merit-based judgment, using │  
  │ clear rules, explanations, and an appeals process.      │  
  └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Please use upvotes and downvotes to reflect relevance, not whether you like or dislike a post.

I worked as a dev on a forum site with a karma system before reddit was even a thing. People will always downvote for any, every, and no reason at all. This is not practically enforceable. Some might try to require comments. This feeds trolls and bumps posts or stops people posting or coming at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 child)

    It's weird how some people expect users of a system that has what amounts to a "yes" and a "no" button to not use them as such.

    Read → think "yes" → upvote

    Read → think "no" → downvote

    That's what the system incentivises at its base, so that's how it's going to be used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 days ago

    It’s not that people don’t understand the buttons. The issue is that voting is meant to do more than record whether someone likes or dislikes a post. It’s supposed to help surface useful contributions and moderate the discussion. I’d expect users to respect that purpose, but the system also makes it easy to use votes as simple approval and disapproval, and that’s the behavior it often rewards.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago

    Just go onto settings and turn off ‘vote display’ ?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago

    I'd seriously suggest looking into the history of Usenet or maybe even Fidonet and BBSes in general if you want to look at distributed forums that don't have Reddit-like karma systems as examples, and the lessons you can draw from them.

    One of the first things, as someone who came of age long after the heyday of Usenet, I noticed was how similar Usenet is to Reddit as a forum.

  • source
  • ha, i think theres several federating platforms where you can disable voting (including lemmy). guess what? it aint popular.

    honestly, spam filtering is a ton faster with humans marking the turds

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

    I use votes for anything in decreasing order of importance: relevance, whether I like it or not, grammer, and last but not least if OP is whining or being trollish.

    A forum that everybody owns and has no votes is a wiki. It seems that you are describing Wikipedia. You would also get the crazy mods of Wikipedia that protect their pages at all cost and prevent anyone from contributing. This would create a big echo-chamber IMHO.

    which can create some of the same popularity dynamics as Reddit

    Without a karma system, it's very different from reddit.

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

    I’m not saying votes are useless. The concern is that a karma system can’t reliably distinguish relevance or quality from popularity, disagreement, or a coordinated downvote. Votes may work well for you, but they can still bury a worthwhile post or boost a bad one. I also agree that without karma, the system would be meaningfully different from Reddit.

    I’m not proposing a wiki where everyone edits the same pages. Threads would remain discussions, and spaces and subjects would be reusable tags. Moderators would handle rule enforcement, not own or control the subject matter.

    I think good moderation could make the difference. If moderators are chosen for fair, merit-based judgment and their decisions are transparent and appealable, paying them could be worth the investment. The forum might not work for everyone, but it could flourish for people who want that kind of discussion.

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

    Votes != karma. Lemmy has votes, reddit has karma.

    Also I don't understand what you want. You want Lemmy with a restricted set of communities, and paid moderators? Tildes has this. As for the moderators, they will become powermods if you don't pay them (which you won't because who pays people for a free forum?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 days ago (2 children)

    Votes and karma aren’t the same thing, agreed. My concern is that Lemmy’s votes still affect what people see. When posts and comments are ranked by votes, visibility is shaped by the user majority, which doesn’t necessarily reflect relevance or quality. Voting can help surface useful content, but it isn’t a substitute for moderation.

    I’m not proposing a restricted set of communities. Anyone could create a community. The difference is that communities could be associated with a shared, global directory of spaces, and no one would own that directory. Spaces wouldn’t be communities themselves; they’d help organize and connect communities around subjects. For example, a History space could list several independently run history communities.

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

    Spaces wouldn’t be communities themselves; they’d help organize and connect communities around subjects

    Piefed has this already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 days ago

    Yes, PieFed already organizes communities into topics, so that part of the idea isn’t new. I don’t mean nodes when I say spaces. Nodes host the service and communities; spaces are a separate directory layer that associates with communities. The distinction I’m exploring is a shared, federated directory that isn’t owned by a node or by any one community. I’d need to explain more clearly how that differs from PieFed’s topics.

  • source
  • parent