Huh. Are we really defining “power users” as ones who vote a whole bunch every day? Because I’d never in a million years chance on that angle.
Power users are those who use a system a disproportionately large amount. Rimu explicitly said it was because the distribution of activity between the most active users (ten or so of us, if memory serves) and the majority.
This is not actually unusual in any online community, but it was apparently worth Rimu’s ire, even after being advised against it by several people, including a fellow Fediverse admin.
That’s not quite true as I understand it. No, I do believe the changes directly help with the stated goals of keeping down vote-brigading / botting and such. That’s some important shizzle that needs to happen no matter the implementation.
Rimu explicitly said that he didn’t think that the top ten users who he was targeting were bots or coordinated. Furthermore, as other people have pointed out, it’s trivially easy to set up a bot to circumvent the voting limit. The only people this punishes are people who are actually interested in interacting with the Fediverse on one account - in other words, the people least likely to be bots or bad actors.
For sure I didn’t realise that some here hit their vote limit, but what are the metrics on that?
I don’t know about the metrics, but I noted in my goodbye thread numerous users whose ‘vote quota’ bars were filled up. Most of them weren’t Piefed.social users, so they won’t even be aware that their votes are being rejected by Piefed.social. Their vote is shadow-banned, in a sense.
Is it maybe better for the cap to be lifted in to a sort of zone that meets both requirements?
What ‘other requirement’ is there, if the problem was not and has never been botting or bad actors? The only two justifications offered by Rimu have been that it’s a ‘bad use’ of ‘the commons’ for people to vote so much; and that a small number of users should not make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse’s activity.
PJ, is just possible that you keeping up the unholy pace of contributing amazing content here on a daily basis possibly weared on you over time? Personally I know it’s been for me, altho I work in a different format. But three years is a hell of a long time to contribute to a free internet project intended for the public good.
No, not at all. Fact is, I miss it terribly, even only a week out. I miss posting much more than voting and browsing, even. But I’m also not going to be half-in and half-out, generating content but stripped of the ability to interact with the content of others on my own terms - terms that I’ve been interacting on for the past three years, and that has never been a problem - in any instance - until now. “I upvote what I like” is apparently no longer acceptable on Piefed.social, if you’re online ‘too much’.
Not a ‘fraud’, in any way. Just a bad decision, and possibly poorly thought out in addition.
I know nothing about the technical side, though the fact that Rimu pivoted to a different explanation when pressed has me skeptical. But it very well could be that voting uses up some significant amount of ‘the commons’ in federating votes. I suspect the actual impact is minimal, though, considering that Piefed.social is the only instance that has even broached the issue, so far as I know, in the three years I’ve been on the Fediverse. And, as mentioned before, it’s trivial to ‘get around’, resulting in the same vote-federation burden as large numbers of votes with one account.
The other explanation offered by Rimu, which I regard as much more likely, is Rimu’s claim that it’s in some way unfair for a small number of users to make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse’s activity. I take him at his word on this - I think he genuinely believes that. No fraud involved. Just a view that power users are some form of ‘influencer’ whose activity is undesirable because it ‘sways’ the community towards the opinions of the most active users.
Rimu, I suspect, thinks that cutting down the tall poppies will just create a more even distribution. Instead, I suspect, it will either result in the former distribution proportion reasserting itself, just with a lower cap and a lower average (thus requiring another reduction of the cap, to ensure a small number of users don’t ‘dominate’ the activity - repeat ad infinitum, or until the instance is dead); or the ‘more even’ distribution being significantly lower in general from decreased activity, as the core function of social media - interaction with others - generates more activity from others as a knock-on effect. It’s self-feeding.
Well, I’m too weak and sick to try to zoom in with my traditional power-glove diplomacy, so what do you figure you’ll do then, mate?
Oof, I followed you and Blaze to PF.S from Lemm.ee, and now it’s yet another bloody-well disaster. This is just a bit much.
Seriuously, I have so much stuff queued upon in my archives that I was looking to post on your communities as a personal thanks. Really only had 1-2wks left to sort it all, fuckitall.
Well then fuck my life.
I cannot tell you how fun & interesting it was trying to add on to your posts and/or provoke questions, accordingly. And you were an amazing sport upon such…!
I love history and animal facts to death, so of course, please leave your T# address?
Power users are those who use a system a disproportionately large amount. Rimu explicitly said it was because the distribution of activity between the most active users (ten or so of us, if memory serves) and the majority.
This is not actually unusual in any online community, but it was apparently worth Rimu’s ire, even after being advised against it by several people, including a fellow Fediverse admin.
Rimu explicitly said that he didn’t think that the top ten users who he was targeting were bots or coordinated. Furthermore, as other people have pointed out, it’s trivially easy to set up a bot to circumvent the voting limit. The only people this punishes are people who are actually interested in interacting with the Fediverse on one account - in other words, the people least likely to be bots or bad actors.
I don’t know about the metrics, but I noted in my goodbye thread numerous users whose ‘vote quota’ bars were filled up. Most of them weren’t Piefed.social users, so they won’t even be aware that their votes are being rejected by Piefed.social. Their vote is shadow-banned, in a sense.
What ‘other requirement’ is there, if the problem was not and has never been botting or bad actors? The only two justifications offered by Rimu have been that it’s a ‘bad use’ of ‘the commons’ for people to vote so much; and that a small number of users should not make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse’s activity.
No, not at all. Fact is, I miss it terribly, even only a week out. I miss posting much more than voting and browsing, even. But I’m also not going to be half-in and half-out, generating content but stripped of the ability to interact with the content of others on my own terms - terms that I’ve been interacting on for the past three years, and that has never been a problem - in any instance - until now. “I upvote what I like” is apparently no longer acceptable on Piefed.social, if you’re online ‘too much’.
Dammit, much of this is just over my head, and I want to support you as well as Rimu in order to find a way through.
But, here-- are you really saying that the whole idea of vote-capping was nothing but a fraud for… who knows what real reasons…?
Not a ‘fraud’, in any way. Just a bad decision, and possibly poorly thought out in addition.
I know nothing about the technical side, though the fact that Rimu pivoted to a different explanation when pressed has me skeptical. But it very well could be that voting uses up some significant amount of ‘the commons’ in federating votes. I suspect the actual impact is minimal, though, considering that Piefed.social is the only instance that has even broached the issue, so far as I know, in the three years I’ve been on the Fediverse. And, as mentioned before, it’s trivial to ‘get around’, resulting in the same vote-federation burden as large numbers of votes with one account.
The other explanation offered by Rimu, which I regard as much more likely, is Rimu’s claim that it’s in some way unfair for a small number of users to make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse’s activity. I take him at his word on this - I think he genuinely believes that. No fraud involved. Just a view that power users are some form of ‘influencer’ whose activity is undesirable because it ‘sways’ the community towards the opinions of the most active users.
Rimu, I suspect, thinks that cutting down the tall poppies will just create a more even distribution. Instead, I suspect, it will either result in the former distribution proportion reasserting itself, just with a lower cap and a lower average (thus requiring another reduction of the cap, to ensure a small number of users don’t ‘dominate’ the activity - repeat ad infinitum, or until the instance is dead); or the ‘more even’ distribution being significantly lower in general from decreased activity, as the core function of social media - interaction with others - generates more activity from others as a knock-on effect. It’s self-feeding.
Or self-starving, in this case.
Well, I’m too weak and sick to try to zoom in with my traditional power-glove diplomacy, so what do you figure you’ll do then, mate?
Oof, I followed you and Blaze to PF.S from Lemm.ee, and now it’s yet another bloody-well disaster. This is just a bit much.
Seriuously, I have so much stuff queued upon in my archives that I was looking to post on your communities as a personal thanks. Really only had 1-2wks left to sort it all, fuckitall.
As I said in the post.
I’m leaving. I’m out. This is it for me.
I just don’t have the energy to undertake another instance migration with all my comms.
I’ll go back to doomscrolling Tumblr and playing more games, I suppose.
Well then fuck my life.
I cannot tell you how fun & interesting it was trying to add on to your posts and/or provoke questions, accordingly. And you were an amazing sport upon such…!
I love history and animal facts to death, so of course, please leave your T# address?