The cracking-resistance of this system is in the voters who are smart enough to vote as they like (flatworms can do it, so can we) and the depth and complexity of an organic voter/votee history, which would be hard to fake or quickly synthesize.
Of course, yes, the proof requires pudding. A Lemmy fork? Ugh, it’s a lot of work. Maybe a friendly hs teacher can make it the class project.
You miss the point. Your approach requires the targetted minority to experience the hate first, and then react to it, and gives them no method of pro-actively avoiding the content from new sources. It also ensures that every member of the minority in the community in question has a chance to see it, and has to individually remove it.
That suits bigots fine, and unsurprisingly, isn’t sustainable for many targets of bigotry.
Your approach requires the targetted minority to experience the hate first
That isn’t so. There is vote propagation among peers to consider.
If a trusted (upvoted) peer or peers downvotes a bigot (by downvoting the bigot’s posts) then you will see that bigot downvoted in your own perspective as well.
You still see it though, especially if it’s a direct reply. And it is still a responsive system, that lets bigots just come back with new accounts and spew hate until they get downvoted in to silence, when they just come back with another account.
Whilst the latter problem still exists even with moderators, at least a moderator can reduce the number of people exposed to hate.
I’ve lived this. I have zero desire to use the system you describe, because I know it leads to toxicity that I don’t need.
For brand new bigots. That might require a “if the person’s history is too small, exclude” type rule. Which is less than ideal, yes. Lots of false positives there.
But let’s not put the cart before the horse. I think it’s a pretty good idea and I’d like to see it tested.
For brand new bigots. That might require a “if the person’s history is too small, exclude” type rule. Which is less than ideal, yes. Lots of false positives there.
Doesn’t work. For trans folk particularly, throw away accounts not linked to their main account is often the first step of exploring their identity online.
This is all hypotheticals for you, based on some ideal you think is important.
It’s lived experience for me. I told you it wouldn’t work for many folk. Your priority is “free” speech ahead of well being, and well, as a member of a targetted minority on the internet, my priorities are in a different order
The cracking-resistance of this system is in the voters who are smart enough to vote as they like (flatworms can do it, so can we) and the depth and complexity of an organic voter/votee history, which would be hard to fake or quickly synthesize.
Of course, yes, the proof requires pudding. A Lemmy fork? Ugh, it’s a lot of work. Maybe a friendly hs teacher can make it the class project.
You miss the point. Your approach requires the targetted minority to experience the hate first, and then react to it, and gives them no method of pro-actively avoiding the content from new sources. It also ensures that every member of the minority in the community in question has a chance to see it, and has to individually remove it.
That suits bigots fine, and unsurprisingly, isn’t sustainable for many targets of bigotry.
That isn’t so. There is vote propagation among peers to consider.
If a trusted (upvoted) peer or peers downvotes a bigot (by downvoting the bigot’s posts) then you will see that bigot downvoted in your own perspective as well.
You still see it though, especially if it’s a direct reply. And it is still a responsive system, that lets bigots just come back with new accounts and spew hate until they get downvoted in to silence, when they just come back with another account.
Whilst the latter problem still exists even with moderators, at least a moderator can reduce the number of people exposed to hate.
I’ve lived this. I have zero desire to use the system you describe, because I know it leads to toxicity that I don’t need.
For older bigots you would filter them away.
For brand new bigots. That might require a “if the person’s history is too small, exclude” type rule. Which is less than ideal, yes. Lots of false positives there.
But let’s not put the cart before the horse. I think it’s a pretty good idea and I’d like to see it tested.
Doesn’t work. For trans folk particularly, throw away accounts not linked to their main account is often the first step of exploring their identity online.
jesus christ
This is all hypotheticals for you, based on some ideal you think is important.
It’s lived experience for me. I told you it wouldn’t work for many folk. Your priority is “free” speech ahead of well being, and well, as a member of a targetted minority on the internet, my priorities are in a different order
Well nothing validates like suffering.