geteilt von: https://lemmy.world/post/41163572
Both mods are also moderators of announcements@discuss.online; they are admins, this is their instance, and they are engaging in vote tampering to boost their instance and its communities over the rest of the fediverse.
jgrim@discuss.online m_f@discuss.online
Rule 4 of that comm is:
All the bans are from people just downvoting this post (but people who downvoted + commented didn’t get banned). Call the rule stupid or whatever, but this seems like honest enforcement of an established rule so I’d hardly call it PTB behaviour.
This issue just keeps getting more and more entangled - someone called to defederate from an entire instance based on actions regarding a single, tiny community (on a fairly small instance to boot), now it seems that I should go read that article in order to fully understand what’s going on… so I’m drawing a line here and saying that even without bothering to read that article, the wording of this OP (in YPTB I mean) is poorly framed.
Communities should have the right to protect themselves from not merely random downvotes but serial, bot-like brigades. Especially for something called “Thoughtful Discussion” where they are aiming for more limited participation by more thoughtful people, and all the more so when they make a special rule just for that. PieFed has superior methods to handle this - like the ability to restrict downvotes selectively to only community members (I think? I am not a mod there but I remember seeing that mentioned somewhere) - but using Lemmy software there really are no other options provided besides banning people who don’t bother to read the community rules. I agree the solution is not ideal but what else does Lemmy offer to meet the same need?
This OP could be a YDI, or it could be CLM, or even BPR, but without being an admin or doing my own intricate research on lemvotes (which is the burden of OP to have provided) I simply do not have the information necessary to decide. (Therefore it’s probably YDI, even if the mod’s rejection reason could have been more clearly articulated on their end.)
…That post is blatant misinformation. If you aren’t allowed to downvote misinformation, then what ARE you allowed to downvote?
I think you’re supposed to thoughtfully discuss what’s wrong with it. That’s not a “downvote and move along” sort of community
If you come across a niche community it’s best not to interact with it, if you don’t like their content, block them.
Sure, it’s a bad article that relies on iffy reasoning, but it manages to dress that up enough that I can see why someone might be duped by it. And it hardly seems fair to be this vitriolic about someone being misinformed and enforcing their comm rules when no actually points out what’s wrong with what’s been posted or links to actual numbers, rather than guesstimations of the article author.
So why is the admin punishing people for not being duped by it? If you’re told it’s misinformation, and you go out of your way to defend it, then you’re not duped. You’re part of the misinformation. And an admin using admin powers to support that misinformation is just propoganda.
How is just downvoting something telling someone a post is misinformation? People downvote stuff over the most random crap here. Also, they didn’t use admin powers, no site bans were handed out only 3 month comm bans.
Unless you sort by new, a downvote lowers visibility of a post, thus preventing people from being exposed to misinformation. It also frames the article as something most people disapprove of, making it less likely people will believe the article uncritically. Separately, there were comments telling the admin the article was inaccurate, and the admin defended the post.
Please stop going out of your way to defend misinformation.
I definitely would be less ready to accept a post with -15 points at face value, and the post does have comments that point out (some of the) problems with the article. It’s rather questionable whether it’s worth it to dogpile the post with negative comments, versus just downvoting and moving on.
I mod !uk_politics and I’ve seen good articles go negative just because people don’t find the headline agreeable.
One, downvoting something can be a form of dogpiling and two, the mods clearly want disagreement to be voiced in the comments not through downvotes. This is laid in rules so I don’t think this constitutes power tripping behaviour.
I have three news come and see the same thing. Most people don’t even read the articles.
I’d prefer disagreement go to the comments, too. I do adjust what I post based on how people engage with it, including downvotes. A rule about mandatory engagement to vote for some communities would be pretty cool, but difficult to implement without some software mechanism.
I don’t mod any PieFed communities myself but I believe that PieFed can restrict voting to only subscribed members of a community, which may at least offer some protection against drive-by downvoting from All. See also many other related PieFed features.
If downvoting a bad-faith article is against the rules, they should ban me too!
Like, I’m sure as fuck not going to read every instance/community’s rules to see if I can push the downvote button on bad information.
Is it “vote manipulation” to click a post’s downvote button once? I think it’s disingenuous to frame it like this in the modlog.
I’d argue that the no-downvotes-rule itself is a form of vote manipulation.
The reason is bullshit, for sure. They should have pointed to the comm rule instead.