Every day, I see absolutely moronic comments getting upvoted while perfectly reasonable takes are downvoted. This would be a great opportunity to curate your feed by blocking these users en masse. Active curation like this is the only way to make social media even half-tolerable.
Whether you use it to filter out toxic users or to build an echo chamber, I think everyone should be free to do so. No one should be forced to share space with people they feel bring no value to the discussion - or, worse, make it more toxic.
At least you postet this in the right community.
I assume you aren’t trolling, so here is what will happen when implemented: After about two weeks you will have blocked everyone who isn’t you, your alt accounts or a bot.
“Creating an echo chamber” is said a lot when people talk about blocking, banning and defederating. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes it’s utter bullshit. What you suggest, blocking people because you don’t like how they vote, is beyond bonkers. And I say this as someone who at times can be quite trigger happy with the block feature.
PS: “Everyone but me is a moron” is the mark of the moron.
“Everyone but me is a moron” is the mark of the moron.
I’ve heard it phrased: “If you’re surrounded by assholes. Maybe you’re the asshole.”
After about two weeks you will have blocked everyone who isn’t you, your alt accounts or a bot.
Why is this an issue for you?
Blocking this, banning that. The result will be a bunch of filter bubbles where people only see what confirms and validates their own prejudices. Echo chambers, as you call them. I agree that this is a better scenario than a cesspool of cynicism and hate and negativity, but surely we can do better.
If the objective is incentivizing good behavior, here’s another idea: reward upvoting and make it costly to downvote. Details TBD but other forums have done it and it works.
If the objective is incentivizing good behavior, here’s another idea: reward upvoting and make it costly to downvote. Details TBD but other forums have done it and it works.
A simple way is to make downvotes “cost” more clicks. For example:
- if you want to upvote someone, you click the arrow up button and you’re done.
- if you want to downvote someone, you click the arrow down button, then a pop-up confirming it.
It isn’t too much of a deal if you downvote people sparingly, but if you’re consistently downvoting others it would get annoying.
Additionally, PieFed has a feature in line with your idea: up/downvoting people gives you “attitude”, and if your attitude is too low (too many downvotes in comparison with upvotes), a warning mark appears near your username. Mods can also use this as a piece of info to decide how to handle you, as users who are consistently downvoting others are typically combative.
I can already block entire instances along with every single user there. I don’t see why I should care if that’s what someone wants to do.
[meta] that’s it. i’m confused again if i should upvote or downvote in this community. upvoting gives op just more visibility for their shenanigans. so now i’ll just block the whole stupid community. i’m sick of every day being opposite day.
Upvoted as unpopular, per the rules of the community.
I don’t think this would be an even remotely good feature.
You never know why someone specific up/downvoted a piece of content¹; at most you can pull up some possible explanations, but if you treat any as certain you’re just assuming². As such you’ll be blocking a lot of people based on things that you don’t even disagree with.
- not even when the person announces why they’re up/downvoting something, like I did.
- treating something uncertain as if it was true. The bane of social media.
You can use Mbin to see upvotes
