@Collummcjingleballs - 1854 posts unbanned
@90u9y8gb9t86vytv97g - 1740 posts
@wtypstanaccount04 - 1696 posts unbanned
@AssVanDerButt - 1479 posts unbanned
@throwawaylemmy - 1212 posts
@Young_Lando - 1140 posts
@Gkalaitza - 1092 posts unbanned
@Collummcjingleballs - 1854 posts unbanned
@90u9y8gb9t86vytv97g - 1740 posts
@wtypstanaccount04 - 1696 posts unbanned
@AssVanDerButt - 1479 posts unbanned
@throwawaylemmy - 1212 posts
@Young_Lando - 1140 posts
@Gkalaitza - 1092 posts unbanned
Reddit's shit and what is happening here are completely different.
I completely support this and what it will do to protect trans people and other minority groups here. This can be extend to race and so on. It will play a big role in marginalised groups having real trust in the admin team.
You want to ban people for upvoting or downvoting content?
When it matches a pattern of downvoting content about a specific marginalised group? Yes. You are taking part in marginalising that group.
What kind of content would qualify?
Trans positive posts. Content specifically about racial struggle of a specific group. Intersectionalist content. Etc.
Essentially, if your voting pattern matches the pattern of a person that would hate that group of people, you are indistinguishable from a person that hates that group of people.
Maybe it's because I've been out of the loop/offline for the past couple of weeks, but this seems pretty wack.
Like who decides what qualifies as a "bad voting pattern"
It is pretty wack. People here need to log off, this is possibly the most cringe online thing I have witnessed
Who decides what qualifies as breaking the rules in a community? The team running it. Whether that's at a mod level for individual comms or at an admin level on a sitewide basis.
The admin team, primarily, in consultation with the userbase.
In this case it was consistently downvoting pro-trans posts.
deleted by creator
It does reinforce the average ideas in a group, but just because there is a group of people, and they are being marginalized in some context, doesn't mean the term "marginalized group" is appropriate. It means marginalized socially and economically, in a broad sense.
In the same way "hate speech" is short for "talking about hating people for their inherent qualities" and not "saying you hate kale"
The implications and logic wrapped up in that phrase don't apply to giving a PMC neoliberal downvotes when they post dumb shit here.
I agree. I like them though and am reluctant to let go of them, I think others feel similar. I do think you can achieve exactly the same results in terms of algorithm without downvotes though.
If anything I'm partially in favour of keeping them and this policy of banning reactionaries for their voting habits BECAUSE it becomes a tool that can be used to out reactionaries.
deleted by creator
Yeah it's a horrible option in a site without a standing mod team that are constantly investigating.
Probably viable for a site that's not about profits. Definitely a bad idea for a capitalist website because they definitely wouldn't do it properly.
Kind of reminds me of the ol' thing about if what they do is indistinguishable from what CIA would do then what difference does it make of they're actually working for the CIA or not?
Does it matter if Mayo Pete actually gets a paycheck from them, or is it his actions that count?
Same here - vote like anti-trans, no need to definitively "prove" anti-trans... Just do what we do to bigots. Fuggem
How would CIA wreck a budding leftist forum? Unleash some “auditors” to strike at some legitimate transphobes and some innocent favorite users. Stir shit. Wreck.
Dismissing a wholesome campaign of eradicating transphobes from the site as CIA wrecking seems problematic, but I get what you're saying. Stirring up shit wherever & whenever is definitely their Modus Operandi - but if they're the impotis for purging transphobes I say fuck yeah, more power to em. As a community if we can be "wrecked" by purging transphobes then we don't deserve to exist anyways.
Wiping transphobes is dope & good. If some fav users get caught in the crosshairs no biggie, it's easily fixed afterwards... Not like we took em out back & shot em.
But here's the thing though: What if "user X" just doesn't get along with "user Y", so "user X" downbears every post "user Y" makes.
"user Y" happens to belong to a minority group, so "user X" gets banned for being a supposed reactionary/bigot/whatever, even though their downbears was based on a personal disagreement, rather than anything having to do with identity.
That seems like a potential problem to me.
Then that person could appeal their ban and as a piece of evidence use the fact that they downvoted every post from that other user
Fair enough.
I'm still not convinced that this is a good idea though.
You're right. To which I would say they should think about their petty childish voting better lmao.
Getting banned doesn't even affect anyone here though. There is no karma lost. There are no pts. It's just an account name. It's little more than a slap on the wrist to be honest.
I mean, I basically agree. But the "there is no karma lost" thing also goes for users who are getting downbears for whatever reason, right?
No. It affects algorithm and it affects the people from that marginalised group when they feel (correctly) that there are people that hate them taking actions of hate against them.
You know, I thought about it and you're right. Thanks for making me think, comrade!
Also thinking it would be a good idea to just get rid of downbears. Just remove the option for people to passively act like dicks.
I think there's a few ideas floating. I'm in favour of requiring people to comment in order to downbear, with the expectation that the comment will explain the downbear. A test of it at least... Because the petty drama will entertain me. :sicko-yes:
Oooh, that is deliciously evil.