OpenStars

I presumed too much, my apologies. I thought you were talking about the "echo chamber effect", which is a topic of much contention among people who discourse about social media platforms. If you were simply saying that people like what they like and do not like what they do not like, then yes, that much is true - although in that case I am not sure why it needed to be said? - although even there, PieFed allows for more options to moderate such than Lemmy does, while remaining the same in other ways. But I am not trying to push you into anything that you do not want to know about.

Okay then to get back to the core of the issue and summarize: if you don't want to use something - a feature, a piece of software, whatever, then do not use it? It really is as simple as that.

I was saying that PieFed offers additional capabilities beyond Lemmy. If you choose not to avail yourself of those, that is entirely your choice, and I support you doing whatever you like in that regard!:-) But so too should others have the identical freedom. I am not debating that places such as 4chan (where anything and everything goes) may have merit or not, just that the subject under discussion was whether "Didn't piefed came with built-in echo chamber features", to which I was saying yes sorta but mainly no not really.

Mods on PieFed have one additional option beyond what Lemmy mods have: the latter can only "remove content" vs. "not remove content", whereas PieFed mods have a more middle-of-the-road option where they can choose to not remove content far more often, trusting that the automated filters will remove the content only for those users who have indicated their preference to not see such, rather than force a choice that affects all users one way or the other. To me that sounds like the literal opposite of the "echo chamber effect", from the standpoint of the mods, even though yes users can surround themselves in such a bubble if they so choose.

As too they could under Lemmy as well, requiring a bit of effort to block many users but it can definitely be done, whereas PieFed provides the option to use community-based moderation to achieve the same end, and in the process affects each item of content individually, while allowing users to not have to block other users, and thereby all content from them, to achieve this effect. e.g. I could see an icon for a highly contentious user who receives 10x more downvotes than upvotes, and choose to ignore that fact and respond anyway, or else be more measured in my response, or just read it and continue scrolling.

Think about that last option: I would be able to read the content in this scenario, even if I chose not to respond, whereas if I block the entire user account then I will not even see it in the first place? Blocking is a heavy hammer, whereas user labels are the gentlest of informational resources. Lemmy provides ONLY the option to either block vs. not block, both to mods of communities as well as to individual end-users of one another, whereas PieFed provides many alternate forms of nuance via tools that the users can use, or yes abuse, as they so choose.

More choices = freedom. More exposure of content is the opposite of an echo chamber effect. PieFed provides more choices to allow for more exposure of content than Lemmy does, which only offers the removal/block features without the nuances that PieFed allows for.

I hope this thought makes someone's day:-).

Also, conversely but similarly perhaps helpful:

Narrowly, yes you are correct. The comment I was originally replying to was:

Didn't piefed came with built-in echo chamber features, hiding downvoted comments by default and marking people who get downvotes with special marks?

I think in that scenario bans because downvoting patterns would be far more aggressive

Which is how we got into whether those features create echo chambers (as Lemmy already provides for as well) rather than facilitate user choices. I was pointing out how PieFed mods have one additional option beyond what Lemmy mods have: the ability to not remove a comment or post even if it is controversial and thus highly downvoted, knowing that they can rely upon the end users (those that want to) using those filters to ignore the content. i.e. PieFed allows mods to be more lenient, if they so choose, the very polar opposite of an "echo chamber effect".

Any system still allows for abuses, of course, and PieFed's all the more relies upon detection of systemic abuses. Although so too have several apps - I am not sure which ones offered such automatic hiding and removal features (perhaps Sync and/or Connect?) but its offering by PieFed was not entirely novel.

Furthermore this is an age-old problem: how to detect and remove spam while preserving legitimate content, how to filter pornography while allowing proper e.g. medical uses, how to stop cancerous cells while allowing the body to heal using cell division normally? Nothing will ever be perfect. Anyway, PieFed provides some features, which people can choose to use or not, as they please. I have argued that no they are not actually "built-in echo chamber features"... even while yes they can be abused towards that end of the spectrum (hence my original answer, "Yes, and maybe, plus no." - which was not intended to be entirely comprehensive, even if it did delve a bit into some details).

I see it, but yeah I also see what you mean: the scale of it happening here is lesser.

Keep in mind though that the default of collapsing or even hiding controversial content is something like 10 downvotes per every upvote for the former and far more for the latter (2x? 5x? I don't want to create a new account just to find the current set of defaults but those are what I recall from many months ago when I created this one). Someone could in theory put ridiculous values in the boxes to hide every post with zero upvotes and one downvote, but that is extremely far from the intended use case scenario.

But sure I'll bite: so what if someone did that though - if that was their choice, then stupid as it might be, and regardless of how it may leave no content leftover after the downvote brigades got through with their efforts, but even so, if someone CHOSE that for themselves, then you have not explained why they should be prevented from screwing themselves over in that manner?

Yes it could encourage it more - granted - and if it became a large problem then all the more reason to remain vigilant. But... why not allow the end user the choice? This is "social media", we are just chatting here! And if someone knows themselves well enough to realize how easily they get triggered and want a different experience than those of us who would leave that feature turned off, why should they be prevented from such? The fact that this is an "option" provided for the end user to choose from is the crucial difference imho, rather than leave every decision to the admins and mods.

Unless you take the viewpoint that people are too stupid to make choices for themselves and need to be controlled so that they receive solely what is "best" for them - which might or might not be a valid topic we could argue but I was ignoring it here.

And yes, people who have such controversial content filtering will not see... controversial content, by design? That's not a bug though, it's a feature? Really! You can turn off that feature - I likewise already have (it was virtually literally the first thing I did upon making my PieFed account) - but if someone wants such content to be hidden/removed, then that is their choice, yeah?

there is no qualitative difference for you individually if you find a particular user annoying

There is a HUGE difference though - don't you see how blocking users blocks entire USERS, while blocking content (e.g. an individual comment underneath a post) blocks only each individual item of content? It's a rather ENORMOUS difference actually? What if a user posts both politics and also memes and you enjoy the latter though cannot stand the former? Also, blocking is permanent, no matter how many years pass between the decision and later content.

I really don't see how the things you describe for Piefed would change how Mods react to what they perceive as systematic downvoting.

Granted that it is up to the mods in question, but PieFed at least offers additional choices that can be made - just as in the example I have regarding Trump and Musk, controversial content could be left in, trusting that those that do not want to see it can choose to filter it out, rather than submit a complaint to the mods (or admins) that they would prefer that such filtering work be done for them (bc once you see something it really is too late to unsee it). Here, one community can have multiple types of users rather than have to make a separate community to serve all the variety of needs.

Which drastically reduces the burden of moderation, as well as increases choice, and encourages posting content that otherwise people may be too hesitant to post for wondering how the community will respond, positively or negatively or neutral. In PieFed it is no longer about the binary decision to "remove content" vs. "not remove content", but rather connecting users with the content that they most want to see - in part, yes, by filtering out content that the users do not want to see, since attention is a limited commodity.

It's almost like some people have a vested interest in wanting to downvote "anonymously" while preventing others from being able to do anything about the result? :-P

Not just no politics but the ability to both have far less of it while still reading up on it when you want! Tbf a true "no politics" would be nearly impossible - e.g. is an OC painting "political" if it depicts an image of Trump?

The best features of PieFed are going to be in the web UI for awhile until app devs catch up. In addition to Voyager as someone mentioned, there is also Interstellar and several others, as well as a Thunder fork (but not checked into the main code available on the App store yet).

I am not downvoting you but your reply here is not very well thought out. Perhaps it is just your presentation.

It reads like a "you should smile more, because I am such a nice man" Reddit-esque position, where you should have all the freedom to do whatever you want - e.g. downvote people - but then others should not have the freedoms to respond to your actions in whatever manner they decide is best for themselves?

Perhaps indeed you would be happier at an instance - such as reddthat.com - that disables downvotes, rather than the freedom-loving anarchist lemmy.dbzer0.com. But that would be YOUR choice, you do not get to make MY choices for me.

Also, you are factually incorrect: downvotes are in fact public information, despite how the web UI client and most apps do not provide an easy means to disclose them. e.g. your last downvote (that I can see) was on July 27 for https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/21688252. Anyone at any time can see these, with a tool that discloses that info, and it has always been thus, from the very beginning of Lemmy?

Although I hope you choose to think that thought through more deeply: why should anonymous voting (as you seemed to think it was) be allowed, and also end-users prevented from being able to do anything in response to it? How is that in any way "more" (rather than less) free, when one under-class of users is subject to the nonconsensual recipient of e.g. voting barrages - i.e. you get what you want but neither the recipient nor any innocent third-party bystander is free to do the same? In a truly free society, people need to be able to make choices for themselves - which PieFed provides to end-users in that regard, whereas Lemmy provides that choice only to admins and mods.

Do not gloss over that latter point: there is an enormous distinction between an "institutional(-ized)" echo chamber, where the tools or locality themselves enforces it - an example being lemmy.ml that infamously site-wide bans people from communities that they have never even heard of for comments made in unrelated communities, if they are even slightly critical (or not support enough?) of Russia, China, or North Korea - and the choices of the end user. People should be allowed to dislike things, if that is what they desire, and they should not be forced into using 4chan, if they do not choose to, imho. I can see why authoritarians would want to literally force people into viewing content that they did not want to see, but why would freedom-loving people do so?

Again, do as you please, but I ask that you allow me to do the same (even if I only speak on behalf of those who may choose to use those tools, I am a HUGE fan of their existence, in offering that choice to people for them to make, as they please!:-). As an example, perhaps for 350 days of the year I choose to expose myself 100% to people's emotional vomiting, but then for a couple weeks I decide to take a break from (waves hands) all of this that is going on in the world - am I allowed to have desires, and to make that choice? PieFed says: ABSOLUTELY, here you are FREE! Lemmy: lol no bitch, you'll take what a mod decides to offer and like it.

Sorry if I came across too strong here - I recognize that you have been under the oppressive regime of Lemmy and Reddit for so very long, that your position of what "freedom" is (the ability to make choices) is likely very skewed, as mine was too, but the good news is that you do not have to remain under that yoke any longer than you want to: you too are free! Research how PieFed.(social|world|blahaj.zone|ca|zip|au|dk, etc.) works and you will surely stand in awe of it like me! But if not... then that's okay too, I support your right to do as you please - though I would hope that you would offer the same consideration to others too?

It's definitely the latest hot tool on the Fediverse, it'll be great to know about it even if for some reason you decide to stick with a Lemmy instance. Although my guess is that one glance at the features and you will fall in love, switch, and stay with it forever - yes I truly believe that:-).

Like one of the absolute best features if how it allows you to have your cake and eat it too: on the Threadiverse it can be harder to find more niche content, but those Categories of Communities (oops, now called "Topics" I forgot) really help you dig deeper. A positive example is poetry, often ignored by most Lemmings, but it's one of the featured ones - e.g. Arts & Crafts @ piefed.social, then the sub-category/topic of "Arts".

e.g. if you get overwhelmed by "politics" literally EVERYWHERE, you can unsubscribe to the political communities, yet always have politics available at the touch of a button by visiting the News & Politics Topic page (subdivisions of USA, World, and RSS Feeds), this is what I mean by "having your cake" (ability to not join these communities, so that their content does not overwhelm your Subscribed feed) while also "eating it too" (ability to still read & easily find it).

As you can guess, it can take awhile to get used to what PieFed offers and fully optimize it to tailor it to your wants - but it's just fantastic that it even offers it in the first place, free, and also free of tankie philosophies as well, it's amazing!:-P

Yes, and maybe, plus no.

When individual users have more tools to work with, the mods don't have to be as authoritarian. e.g. if a bunch of people complain to a mod of a European community that there are too many posts mentioning Donald Trump and Elon Musk, then with PieFed the individual users can use the keyword filtering tools to tailor their personal view of the shared community content to accomplish that end (best of all there, the options include not only All and None but to filter Some of the content).

Another example is that by labeling highly contentious users, e.g. those who receive >10x more downvotes than upvotes, the users themselves can make the choice as to whether to engage or simply keep scrolling, i.e. providing additional options beyond simply block vs. allow. People that would otherwise be blocked will likely have their content be more exposed rather than less using this tool - or at least that's one possiblity, which Lemmy did not allow or provide for (offering only Block vs. not, with nothing whatsoever in-between).

Still another example are people who post 10x more often than comment - a potential unregistered bot account, where I guess commenting on their posts could be a waste of time if many people block that account and thus a reply on those posts is unlikely to ever be seen by an actual human?

And still another example is new accounts, less than a couple weeks old, so that your reply may be different to them than an established user.

Yes PieFed can also automatically collapse or hide content based on downvotes received. I have these features turned off but if someone wants them on, then such a person might be better off to use them, rather than feel tempted to downvote or comment on such controversial content? (Edit: imagine a world where instead of comments like "this take is disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself for not thinking precisely as I personally do myself!", those who don't want to see such things do not have to, while those that do can have a genuine back-and-forth discussion without such noise. Good fences make good neighbors? This seems the polar opposite of an echo chamber where everyone simply MUST view the same content in one of the same identical manner of options provided, because those are the only options that the developers have deigned to allow for.)

A CRUCIAL difference here is that all of these features above are implemented at the level of individual users, making their own personal choices about what they want to see or not see. Lemmy mainly provides features to instance admins and community mods, but by shifting the choices downwards to the user level, it's a whole new era in content management, having democratized the process, or at least allowing more for that, rather than leaving all the capabilities - along with all the responsibilities - in the hands of the authority figures higher up in the hierarchy?

I will leave it as an exercise to prove whether putting power into the hands of the people rather than concentrating it into the hands of a few is "good" or not (my personal opinion is that it's great!), but objectively PieFed seems to offer far more "freedom" to end-users than Lemmy, as I understand it. (Edit: I guess I am saying that if Lemmy is akin to Windows where Big Daddy is always right, not only but especially when he is wrong:-P, because that is simply the only option made available to people - to either stay or go, fully block or fully allow, nothing in-between is provided for - then PieFed is Linux leaving it up to the user to decide individually what is right for them, by tailoring their customization options to suit their desires. Yes that theoretically could lead to an echo chamber where everyone must use a wide variety of flavors of Linux, in which case yes some could make the "wrong" choice - although I would argue there, why is it wrong if that is what they desire? - but don't forget that the alternative is somehow even more of an echo chamber where everyone must use Windows, so I for one don't see the addition of these new features as a bad thing? I suppose time will tell.)

Lemmy is developed by tankies though, after being kicked off of Reddit and going out and making their own (federated) replacement.

PieFed is a forum software developed by anti-alternative-facts-ers, which also has many more features than Lemmy despite being far newer, owing its development speed to it being in Python rather than the difficult language of Rust that most developers avoid. Examples include categories of communities (like multi-reddits), which are user customizable and shareable, and combination together of all comments from every cross-post, which helps deal with the fragmentation effect inherent in federated forums, and flairs (user and post), and polls, etc. It's great!

Read more, or try it out firsthand at the European-based PieFed.social (primary instance where all the features are tested out first) or PieFed.World (run by Lemmy.world team) or others - once you see it you'll forever think of Lemmy as being far behind.

Best of all is that PieFed features aim at putting power into the hands of users to make more informed decisions - e.g. democratization of moderation and putting the community sidebar text at the bottom of every post in the web view - while in contrast Lemmy, owing to its tankie background, has ended up more authoritian than Reddit itself was (e.g. there is a modlog in Lemmy but no modmail, no notification of a moderation event, no method of appeal or even to ask questions, and you can't even DM someone when the name of the account that removed your content simply says "mod" - it didn't always used to be that way btw, that was a feature that Lemmy specifically added, to obfuscate the name of the mod, even while a modmail still does not exist yet).

Lemmy is primarily developed with instance admins in mind to run their own Reddit 2.0 however they like, while PieFed provides more features to end-users - it even has several that not only Lemmy but even Reddit itself lacks!