The mod banning these users is the same mod who made the posts they downvoted. This is mod abuse, turning the downvote button into an auto-self-ban button.
The message is “If you disagree with me, you will be banned”
Monitoring and banning users for using lemmy as intended to signal boost your opinion should be grounds to have all mod privileges removed. This behaviour undermines the integrity of the server and the wider fediverse.
There were more arguments for the anonymous votes to be abused for vote manipulation than power tripping mods
We’ve been over this before. I believe my ability to explicitly control how my information and privacy is handled on the fediverse is far more important than fake Internet points, especially when you can eliminate the impact of vote brigading by just reducing the impact of downvotes, or let a mod selectively wipe downvotes, or selectively make a post immune to downvotes. There are many ways to handle this which are better than the status quo. There’s absolutely no reason why every action I make on the fediverse ahould be saved in plaintext in a thousand different places so that a person can be protected from seeing a largely inconsequential negative number on a UI. It’s absolutely insane that so many people who are otherwise so concerned with privacy and cyber security even attempt to defend this.
Extend this logic to actual comments and ask yourself how quickly this would descend into 4chan.
Whether you like it or not, a vote is a much expression as any type of reply. Why is it that a button that says “I dislike this post” should be protected while a comment saying the exact same thing should not?
I think what Blaze was saying is that your opinion was a minority. When put to the debate, most people prefer the public voting situation.
Now I don’t necessarily think that the upvote/downvote system in itself is the best system that can exist on these sites and !blaze@lemmy.zip himself has also talked about this, but so long as Piefed is the junior partner to Lemmy - it can’t really dictate the future here as of this moment.
Indeed. I am preferably in favor of a drop of the updownvotes for a Slashdot like system, but that’s a major change
What debate? This was discussed mostly in a discord stovepipe. There was one open thread about it in the piefed meta community which never showed up in my feed.
The frustrating thing is that the problems were entirely imagined. Having a voting agent is literally no different from me having a voting alt, except it’s only one instead of unlimited. I could write a browser plugin which restores the functionality that could do far more damage, so if a single voting agent is truly a game breaking issue, then the alleged problems are far more fundamental. But they aren’t. There was never any actual problem and this whole thing was just shitty forum politics.
I’ve seen a lot of discussion on this scattered around. I don’t sense popular support across the fediverse for going to anonymous voting.
Downvote noise from random accounts isn’t a problem for 90% of communities most of the time - either they don’t have anyone like that, or they’re simply too big for them to have any impact. I sense the most obvious problem is when you’re growing a community and a handful of downvoters latch on, for want of a better word and continually downvote posts - as I did on my community. Until I removed them.
What plugin could you do more damage with?
Having a single voting agent per user doesn’t change that though. If you’ve got downvote trolls you can just ban the voting agent just like you could otherwise ban the sockpuppet. All it does it allow actual users to have a small but important layer of privacy which allows them to vote on content they might not otherwise choose to comment on. The Charlie Kirk thing is an absolutely perfect example of a scenario where one might want to upvote a meme without taking the risk of joining the conversation. Having that vote registered as xxyyttrreedd instead of “socsa” makes it a lot harder for someone to come back a month or a year later and say “wow, I saw my coworker’s account name over their shoulder and I can’t believe they voted on this meme.”
Sorry, so you mean obfuscating identities of voters but they could still be seen as separate ‘agents’? So in that way a community owner could ban downvoters, they just wouldn’t know who got banned?
Yes, that is exactly how the original piefed implementation worked, which was a fantastic compromise between true anonymous voting and the need for community management. But this wasn’t enough for a small subset of admins and mods who did not actually think the issue through, and took offense under the guise of “vote brigading.”
I don’t recall piefed showing you any voter details before Rimu changed it. I recall it being completely anonymous, and only deweighting downvoters if they did X downvotes in a row (meaning their downvote wouldn’t count locally). Then he changed it, and added non-federated voting.
But supposing we had a sort of proxy voting system, whereby a downvote by you is identified under a proxy name - if you got banned by a community moderator for voting like that, wouldn’t they instantly see who you were by checking the community ban list?
How does a mod selectively wipe downvotes with anonymous voting?