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.
Sorry. I tend to use Lemmy as another stand-in for fediverse, same as people say Kleenex for facial tissues.
But you still seem to think this ban on interacting too much with people is a good thing, which I just can’t fathom.
No-one can vote on a post more than once, and the votes are meaningless anyways. Plus, the more content and interactions, the better the fediverse is. So why stop people from voting to their heart’s content? The admin even flat-out said he thought too much interaction in the fediverse was a bad thing, which is like… that’s why we’re here? To interact with people?
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.
Yes, but PugJesus hosted all his stuff on Pifed. That’s why he left; it was just too much to move.
And again, if he was hitting it regularly, just a regular Lemmy content creator, that limit was way too fucking low.
And again, since the limit is well-displayed, it’s not hard to get around it.
So it’s fucking stupid.
Again you keep saying Lemmy, that’s wrong. That isn’t Lemmy. Lemmy is the one run by red fascist tankie genocidal anti-trans maniacs.
Sorry. I tend to use Lemmy as another stand-in for fediverse, same as people say Kleenex for facial tissues.
But you still seem to think this ban on interacting too much with people is a good thing, which I just can’t fathom.
No-one can vote on a post more than once, and the votes are meaningless anyways. Plus, the more content and interactions, the better the fediverse is. So why stop people from voting to their heart’s content? The admin even flat-out said he thought too much interaction in the fediverse was a bad thing, which is like… that’s why we’re here? To interact with people?