Unfortunately, it probably isn’t possible to. Unless, of course, everyone here (and I do mean everyone) is perfectly alright with the Fediverse never gaining mainstream popularity, the plain and inconvenient truth is that it’s only a matter of time until Lemmy and Kbin are infected with the same kind of shit. This phenomenon predates Reddit, it predates 4chan, it predates Digg. Ask early Usenet members 30 years ago just how far back this issue goes.
But what if, instead of trying to prevent it entirely, we simply tried to slow it down as much as possible? Now, you’re working with reality, not against it.
One idea I’ve always been in favor of has been the concept of installing limits: limited posts, limited replies, limited votes, etc. I don’t know if this is a thing that could be rolled out on an instance-per-instance basis or that, even if it could be, if it would be as effective as a platform-wide initiative, but the appeal of setting limits is to introduce scarcity and thus more weight to a user’s actions.
If you only have X number of possible actions per day, such as X number of posts, how might that affect your behavior? Would you still shitpost as often in every pun thread, upvote every repost, argue with every single troll? Probably not.
There are obviously some downsides to this as it might have a not insignificant effect on promoting genuinely good content and or punishing (downvoting to oblivion) objectively bad or offensive content – and again, at best, you’d really just be delaying the inevitable as long as possible – but I think it’s worth investigating nevertheless.
You steadfastly refuse to upvote low-effort crap, and instead upvote comments and content that are either well-informed, detailed, full of effort, or insightful. (Insightful doesn’t require length or effort - a short, punchy comment that cuts to the heart of the issue can be very insightful.) You do that even when you disagree; or at least withhold the downvote for things that are well thought out but that you personally disagree with.
Liberally downvote the “LOLmemeROFL” stuff. Except in subs where that’s the point.
Enough people do that, and quality will rise to the top.
Google “The Cargo Cult of the Ennui Engine” for further reading.
Algorithms, assuming they exist in the fediverse, are included in the source code, which is [X]GPL (change the X for an L or an A) or any other free licence.
And karma has no value, assuming it exists too. In Lemmy there is no karma, and in Kbin, despite people saying there is, I didn’t see it anywhere, so there isn’t to me.
And the federation structure also has a good part in this equation. Maybe a specific instance for all those “social” elements.
Legitimately curious how we prevent that from happening here.
Maybe no karma idk if thats controversial but i feel like that was part of why ppl on reddit tried so hard. Or maybe only negative karma? Idk tho
Unfortunately, it probably isn’t possible to. Unless, of course, everyone here (and I do mean everyone) is perfectly alright with the Fediverse never gaining mainstream popularity, the plain and inconvenient truth is that it’s only a matter of time until Lemmy and Kbin are infected with the same kind of shit. This phenomenon predates Reddit, it predates 4chan, it predates Digg. Ask early Usenet members 30 years ago just how far back this issue goes.
But what if, instead of trying to prevent it entirely, we simply tried to slow it down as much as possible? Now, you’re working with reality, not against it.
One idea I’ve always been in favor of has been the concept of installing limits: limited posts, limited replies, limited votes, etc. I don’t know if this is a thing that could be rolled out on an instance-per-instance basis or that, even if it could be, if it would be as effective as a platform-wide initiative, but the appeal of setting limits is to introduce scarcity and thus more weight to a user’s actions.
If you only have X number of possible actions per day, such as X number of posts, how might that affect your behavior? Would you still shitpost as often in every pun thread, upvote every repost, argue with every single troll? Probably not.
There are obviously some downsides to this as it might have a not insignificant effect on promoting genuinely good content and or punishing (downvoting to oblivion) objectively bad or offensive content – and again, at best, you’d really just be delaying the inevitable as long as possible – but I think it’s worth investigating nevertheless.
You steadfastly refuse to upvote low-effort crap, and instead upvote comments and content that are either well-informed, detailed, full of effort, or insightful. (Insightful doesn’t require length or effort - a short, punchy comment that cuts to the heart of the issue can be very insightful.) You do that even when you disagree; or at least withhold the downvote for things that are well thought out but that you personally disagree with.
Liberally downvote the “LOLmemeROFL” stuff. Except in subs where that’s the point.
Enough people do that, and quality will rise to the top.
Google “The Cargo Cult of the Ennui Engine” for further reading.
Algorithms, assuming they exist in the fediverse, are included in the source code, which is [X]GPL (change the X for an L or an A) or any other free licence.
And karma has no value, assuming it exists too. In Lemmy there is no karma, and in Kbin, despite people saying there is, I didn’t see it anywhere, so there isn’t to me.
And the federation structure also has a good part in this equation. Maybe a specific instance for all those “social” elements.