I haven’t seen anything of the sort, personally. A while back the larger Piefed instance was “shadowbanning” instances they don’t promote, but instance owners are free to do as they wish.
There is an “upvote quota” but I’ve personally never hit it so I don’t know what happens when you do, I kind of doubt a regular human could unless they made it their full time job.
Right, and like he points out, as a frequent poster he often engages low-key with the people who comment on his posts with upvotes. So this really made it hard to engage for him.
Regardless it’s a shit decision by the admin. Everyone on Lemmy gets one upvote/downvote per post they interact with. It’s not as if you can upvote or downvote a post multiple times (unless you go though multiple accounts, which that stupid rule wouldn’t fix anyways), so who cares if some people are upvoting or downvoting more than others? That just means they’re on Lemmy more, which is fine.
So it’s a shit rule for something that isn’t a problem, and doesn’t address a possible adjacent problem (making lots of puppet accounts to push personal agendas) that could actually be an issue. That admin is just an idiot and an ass. I don’t blame Pug for leaving.
I can see it being useful if, for example, a group of machines downvoted enough to be a major influence but not enough to trigger bot detection algorithms. In general, decentralized platforms are much less capable of dealing with such attacks, whereas Reddit (before the company went public and the owner sold out to AI) was identifying and banning millions of bots a month using largescale and complex methods which would be impossible at a smaller scale.
But again, that’s a group. It doesn’t trigger over an entire instance, it triggers only on individual accounts. So it would do absolutely nothing against an issue like that, as I pointed out.
It will trigger each individual account and therefor the entire group. There is an easy workaround if they used more accounts but I’m assuming they already used the maximum number of accounts they could get away with if they were botting.
No? Again, one account, one vote per comment. Each account votes once, on one person’s comment, isn’t going to trigger shit.
If anything, making a ton of puppet accounts and having only some vote in rotation to push your agenda would be the best way to get around it. So it encourages a problem while claiming to fix a problem that isn’t there.
Worse, it drives off the people who are on Lemmy a lot and make a lot of the content. That idiot admin just wants Lemmy to be silent, and he should just unplug his computer and go touch grass on a mountainside somewhere if he wants silence.
At the end of the day each account now has a limit that most humans will never notice, whereas before they could perform as many actions as they desired. It’s the difference between infinite and a very large but clearly limited number.
And if those automated systems hit their limit because the botter issued instructions for them to vote past their limit, then it becomes suspicious behavior which can be used to identify them. Especially true when the botter is part of network utilizing a shared pool of automated accounts.
Worse, it drives off the people who are on Lemmy a lot and make a lot of the content. That idiot admin just wants Lemmy to be silent, and he should just unplug his computer and go touch grass on a mountainside somewhere if he wants silence.
To be clear, in this particular thread we’re discussing a PieFed feature, not Lemmy.
Now, I do agree it should be configurable and toggleable by the instance owners, but I see value in the feature.
I haven’t seen anything of the sort, personally. A while back the larger Piefed instance was “shadowbanning” instances they don’t promote, but instance owners are free to do as they wish.
There is an “upvote quota” but I’ve personally never hit it so I don’t know what happens when you do, I kind of doubt a regular human could unless they made it their full time job.
piefed.social
PugJesus talks about it, before signing off for good.
Yeah he’s talking about the upvote quota. Everybody gets one, visible on the profile, resets daily.
Right, and like he points out, as a frequent poster he often engages low-key with the people who comment on his posts with upvotes. So this really made it hard to engage for him.
Regardless it’s a shit decision by the admin. Everyone on Lemmy gets one upvote/downvote per post they interact with. It’s not as if you can upvote or downvote a post multiple times (unless you go though multiple accounts, which that stupid rule wouldn’t fix anyways), so who cares if some people are upvoting or downvoting more than others? That just means they’re on Lemmy more, which is fine.
So it’s a shit rule for something that isn’t a problem, and doesn’t address a possible adjacent problem (making lots of puppet accounts to push personal agendas) that could actually be an issue. That admin is just an idiot and an ass. I don’t blame Pug for leaving.
I can see it being useful if, for example, a group of machines downvoted enough to be a major influence but not enough to trigger bot detection algorithms. In general, decentralized platforms are much less capable of dealing with such attacks, whereas Reddit (before the company went public and the owner sold out to AI) was identifying and banning millions of bots a month using largescale and complex methods which would be impossible at a smaller scale.
But again, that’s a group. It doesn’t trigger over an entire instance, it triggers only on individual accounts. So it would do absolutely nothing against an issue like that, as I pointed out.
It will trigger each individual account and therefor the entire group. There is an easy workaround if they used more accounts but I’m assuming they already used the maximum number of accounts they could get away with if they were botting.
No? Again, one account, one vote per comment. Each account votes once, on one person’s comment, isn’t going to trigger shit.
If anything, making a ton of puppet accounts and having only some vote in rotation to push your agenda would be the best way to get around it. So it encourages a problem while claiming to fix a problem that isn’t there.
Worse, it drives off the people who are on Lemmy a lot and make a lot of the content. That idiot admin just wants Lemmy to be silent, and he should just unplug his computer and go touch grass on a mountainside somewhere if he wants silence.
At the end of the day each account now has a limit that most humans will never notice, whereas before they could perform as many actions as they desired. It’s the difference between infinite and a very large but clearly limited number.
And if those automated systems hit their limit because the botter issued instructions for them to vote past their limit, then it becomes suspicious behavior which can be used to identify them. Especially true when the botter is part of network utilizing a shared pool of automated accounts.
To be clear, in this particular thread we’re discussing a PieFed feature, not Lemmy.
Now, I do agree it should be configurable and toggleable by the instance owners, but I see value in the feature.