You don’t have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.
But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That’s a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.
Braindead right-wingers consistently vote to deregulate markets and industries they deem to be unfair, just to them, often against their own interests. I’m advocating for regulation for all. Perhaps a sanity check on your own perceived political beliefs might end this discussion
This has nothing to do with equity, you dunce. Voting on the fediverse is not a limited resource. Everyone can do it as much or as little as they want. Until now, when there’s an arbitrary limit for no reason.
And if you think the fact that some people don’t vote in elections is sufficient justification for taking voting rights away from everyone, then you’re frankly an idiot. If that’s what you mean by equitable, then that word is functionally meaningless.
The silent majority is made up of more than just the lurkers, and I think you know that despite leaning on it and needless personal attacks to drive your argument
I am curious though now: Attention is a limited resource, you have bots and even some users dominating that resource. How would you go about making it fairer?
What units do you measure that in? Minutes/hours? Everyone has the same amount of it each day, and everyone rations their own attention however they see fit. One person spending hours on the fediverse and upvoting hundreds of posts isn’t taking anything away from someone who spends minutes on it and upvotes a dozen.
Whatever you mean by “silent majority”, it doesn’t matter. You’re missing the point that nothing is being taken away from them when someone else votes more than they do.
Let’s go with minutes per session, and let’s go with majority of users interacting with their front page which is their first point of entry and is set to “Hot”. You’re certain that one person spending hours upvoting hundreds of posts won’t skew what other users see in their browsing period? You’re sure that their attention isn’t now being diverted elsewhere?
Yes, because that user can still only vote on each post one time. It doesn’t skew anything. Either way, for a post to get 100+ upvotes, it requires 100+ users to upvote it, so nothing is going to reach the all feed unless a significant number of users vote on it, and no one single user has a disproportionate impact on that even if they vote on hundreds or thousands of posts.
It’s like voting down the ballot when some people only vote for president and governor. It’s perfectly fair; they had the same opportunity you did and chose to only vote on two spots. You didn’t get an extra vote to cast on any given seat.
You don’t have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.
But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That’s a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.
Braindead right-wingers consistently vote to deregulate markets and industries they deem to be unfair, just to them, often against their own interests. I’m advocating for regulation for all. Perhaps a sanity check on your own perceived political beliefs might end this discussion
Yes, you’re totally right, as long as we restrict everyone’s voting rights, then it’ll be fair! /s
You’re advocating for stupid and unnecessary regulations simply because you think you won’t personally be affected by it.
I welcome any invitation to touch grass. I encourage you to do the same, and perhaps look up the definition of equitable
This has nothing to do with equity, you dunce. Voting on the fediverse is not a limited resource. Everyone can do it as much or as little as they want. Until now, when there’s an arbitrary limit for no reason.
And if you think the fact that some people don’t vote in elections is sufficient justification for taking voting rights away from everyone, then you’re frankly an idiot. If that’s what you mean by equitable, then that word is functionally meaningless.
The silent majority is made up of more than just the lurkers, and I think you know that despite leaning on it and needless personal attacks to drive your argument
I am curious though now: Attention is a limited resource, you have bots and even some users dominating that resource. How would you go about making it fairer?
“Attention is a limited resource”
What units do you measure that in? Minutes/hours? Everyone has the same amount of it each day, and everyone rations their own attention however they see fit. One person spending hours on the fediverse and upvoting hundreds of posts isn’t taking anything away from someone who spends minutes on it and upvotes a dozen.
Whatever you mean by “silent majority”, it doesn’t matter. You’re missing the point that nothing is being taken away from them when someone else votes more than they do.
Let’s go with minutes per session, and let’s go with majority of users interacting with their front page which is their first point of entry and is set to “Hot”. You’re certain that one person spending hours upvoting hundreds of posts won’t skew what other users see in their browsing period? You’re sure that their attention isn’t now being diverted elsewhere?
Yes, because that user can still only vote on each post one time. It doesn’t skew anything. Either way, for a post to get 100+ upvotes, it requires 100+ users to upvote it, so nothing is going to reach the all feed unless a significant number of users vote on it, and no one single user has a disproportionate impact on that even if they vote on hundreds or thousands of posts.
It’s like voting down the ballot when some people only vote for president and governor. It’s perfectly fair; they had the same opportunity you did and chose to only vote on two spots. You didn’t get an extra vote to cast on any given seat.