rglullis

Ok, so your idea is to actually do the blockchain stuff and get people to pay to comment. There are messengers that work like this (status, I think) but they are a horrible idea. They will be slow and will never scale to more than a few hundred messages per minute, not to mention that it will actually require people to pay for every message.

Meta-moderation and multi-dimensional voting. We were happier with slashdot and we took it for granted.

Apologies for the OT: I sent you a DM some weeks ago asking if you'd be interested in running the Fediverser services with your instance, to make it as a possible destination for redditors migrating via https://fediverser.network.

Like monero.

Either you are conflating two different applications of cryptography or you know something that I don't. And as someone with a pretty good grasp of blockchain applications, I'd love to hear if you have something novel.

Perhaps you mean something like Zero-Knowledge Proofs to verify who voted in an AP object without having to reveal it? This would probably work, but then you have to have all those nasty blockchain-y things like validator nodes and expensive proof generators... If we go that route we might as well go all the way and just use a fully p2p system.

Wait, what? Can a Lemmy instance have a /c/foo and /u/foo at the same time?

I thought that !humanscale@communick.news started to show some signs of life a couple of weeks ago, with good comments on some posts of mine and even got a first post from someone other than me. Alas, summer break broke the momentum.

You are the one pontificating in my comment, and I am the one going personal. Seems like your reasoning is as good as your reading comprehension.

But hey, thanks for stopping by!

dont upvote laydyboys unless you want all to know you like them. Its a sign you shouldnt do it.

This. Unironically.

There is no such thing as privacy in the public internet. There never was. I take it as a given that if some loser decides to look me up they will dig even my IRC chat logs from some server I used to connect almost 30 years ago.

Anything you do in the public internet, you need to ready to own it publicly. If you want/need real privacy, this is the wrong place to be.

Hey, do I owe you anything for all the space I'm taking in your head or am I still living rent-free?

I've addressed this in another comment. At first, it's quite likely that we'd see an increase in behavior. But the way to correct this would be by reporting "serial downvoters" and brigaders to moderators, which could then be empowered to enforce "don't downvote just because you disagree" guidelines.

Hackernews, for all its faults, does this very well. Their moderation team is quite small, yet it rarely falls into screaming matches between users. Their guidelines are clear and let people understand what is/is not acceptable. Mods are rarely seen threatening to ban someone, but often calling out bad behavior and simply asking people to stop doing whatever they are doing before it escalates further.

shifts focus to how the community values of the content.

Ok, I think I get your point, but I can tell you that in my experience is the exact opposite:

• The hivemind effect is strong, and a lot perfectly-acceptable content gets up/downvoted by people just because the score is already high/low.

• I have been posting quite a bit since I joined Lemmy in the different niche communities from the instances that I run. Invariably I see downvotes from people who are not subscribers. I've sent DMs to some of them asking what was wrong with the post, and the answer was simply "this is not interesting to me". I replied saying "Look, this isn't Reddit. There is no algorithm. If you are not interested in the content from this community either block it or don't browse by all". Their response was a basic "how dare you tell me how to browse Lemmy?!" Unsurprisingly, when I tried to bring this up for general discussion, I was mass downvoted for the majority that thinks that "downvotes-as-disagreement" is okay..

So, yeah... In my view, for better or worse votes are part of the conversation. If people were using votes as a valid filter for content quality, I'd totally agree with you. If there is a mass of people downvoting a comment or post that seems to be aligned with the community's values, I feel like I should know why about the comment is deserving of the downvotes. At the very least, I think it's important to know who is downvoting for legitimate reasons and who is downvoting just because they are a whiny brat that should be ignored/muted/blocked.

These specific kinds of things were not a problem, yet it didn't stop the mob from doxxing people "by mistake", getting the police breaking into people homes based on false allegations or getting people fired over something stupid that was said years ago...

If this is about "expectations" of privacy, then it would be better to just expect the worst always and only write/post/share things when you are 100% sure you don't mind them being ever attributed to you.