I really wanted to post this on !traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns@hexbear.net but I'm not trans myself and I didn't want to take up their space.

Basically, the devs of Lemmy are looking to make upvotes public to everyone. Right now, I believe voter identities are known to server admins and mods.

I don't have a strong opinion on this myself, either for or against, as I write this comment, but I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing, frankly as a cishet dude.

But also... I've kinda lost trust in Nutomic making decisions about the software that won't make things worse for trans people since his comments on the Olympics were made public. Dessalines has (so far) at least tolerated Nutomic's transphobia despite whatever prior rhetoric. Frankly, I am suspicious that trans people don't matter to the Lemmy dev team...to be charitable...so I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

  • AernaLingus [any]
    ·
    3 months ago

    Found the paper! Don't fault you for not being able to find it, since the most obvious search keywords are generic and result in a bazillion unrelated studies--I just found it through your old comment:

    How Community Feedback Shapes User Behavior (PDF link is in the right-hand menu)

    Abstract:

    Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author’s future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split.

    • Awoo [she/her]
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ahh that's the paper on downvotes existing at all being a bad thing. I don't recall whether public vs anonymous votes was in the same paper.

      • AernaLingus [any]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I don't recall whether public vs anonymous votes was in the same paper.

        Doesn't seem to be--whoops! Better than nothing, I suppose