Even then, I think it’s a bad precedent. It makes Lemmy feel toxic.
I don’t think votes should be private (as that leads to all sorts of complications, especially with fighting bots/spammers), but I think Lemmy/Piefed should encourage a culture of not highlighting it, unless it’s strictly for a spammer or some other objective rules violation.
The likely chilling effects are obvious to me. Who’d want to (intentionally or accidentally) tap a button on this site when someone’s gonna post your username for it?
Punishment for using default features is concerning for a platform. If we needed thought police they’d probably make downvotes more visible to us.
We can already keep bad content in its place by downvoting it ourselves. We can use logs to investigate brigaging and stalking-to-downvote and suspicious mass upvoting, etc. We owe other users restraint if we want them to come back.
Noticed good behavior on my comment. When a user (whose name I do not need to be told by a third party) believed I didn’t add to the discussion, they used a platform voting feature as intended.
You know what I meant. Encouraging brigading, to be more precise.
Lemmy keeps that info hidden by default for a reason.
Perhaps zionists should be brigaded.
Even then, I think it’s a bad precedent. It makes Lemmy feel toxic.
I don’t think votes should be private (as that leads to all sorts of complications, especially with fighting bots/spammers), but I think Lemmy/Piefed should encourage a culture of not highlighting it, unless it’s strictly for a spammer or some other objective rules violation.
So you don’t know brigading is either?
Lemmy hides it by default. They hide it for a reason, whatever you want to define that reason as.
It feels icky to work around by posting the list of downvotes.
I’ll debate over that, but I’m not going to beat around the bush or start a snarky semantics argument over a linguistic error I made.
Well, that’s an important distinction
Yeah. I made a linguistic error.
Point is, it feels icky, which is why it’s hidden by default.
The likely chilling effects are obvious to me. Who’d want to (intentionally or accidentally) tap a button on this site when someone’s gonna post your username for it?
Punishment for using default features is concerning for a platform. If we needed thought police they’d probably make downvotes more visible to us.
We can already keep bad content in its place by downvoting it ourselves. We can use logs to investigate brigaging and stalking-to-downvote and suspicious mass upvoting, etc. We owe other users restraint if we want them to come back.
Agreed. This is what I was getting at, and you put better than I could.
Noticed good behavior on my comment. When a user (whose name I do not need to be told by a third party) believed I didn’t add to the discussion, they used a platform voting feature as intended.