What factors do you think contributed to the "Reddit Hivemind"? How do you believe it can be avoided?
I've been seeing more often (and others have posted the same) that some of the elements of "Reddit etiquette" seem to be taking over here. Luckily I can still find discussion comments but it seems the jokes and general "downvote because I disagree" are slowly taking over.
So the question becomes is it the size or the functionality of the site? The people or popularity? What's your thoughts?
edit: should I change it to Lemmy-hivemind? Exhibit A: the amount of downvotes without a single explanation (guessing it's anything to do with Reddit being talked about).
Gamifying the voting incentivises people to make low quality posts and comments. That’s why Reddit is now basically just rage bait fake stories with comment chains that all look exactly the same. And now it’s all just ai generated anyway.
I sometimes visit and read the AITAH type stories and I’m dumbfounded that people can believe or enjoy reading them. All the subtleties and nuances of the early days are gone and it’s a race to who can karma farm the hardest.
The other thing that made Reddit great in early days were the small communities being visible on the front page. It made the content varied and there were different types of posting hitting front page. I think Lemmy is struggling with this because politics is just so loud that we don’t have enough volume of other content being made.
Using scaled sorting really helps with getting smaller communities on the front page. I still see the political and news communities but I also see communities for cities and niche hobbies.
Indeed. When’s the last time we saw a well-thought-out, controversial opinion on Reddit?The system breeds behaviors that are in conflict with a high-quality, diverse discussion.
It is for the same reason that I’m very particular about my downvotes. They are reserved for low-quality content, not that which I personally disagree with. I’d like if we could all learn to be less judgmental and more constructive so that we may all learn something meaningful. I think this is incompatible with the way that Reddit operates.
As someone who recently switch to Lemmy, I did notice that there is a general difference in the tone of conversation. This is the first time I've seen it put to words
I wonder if separating relevant/irrelevant & like/dislike into two votes would have any success. Quite likely it would not, but might be worth trying.
Would probably rename [ like / dislike ] to [ agree / disagree ] to avoid overlapping with [ relevant / irrelevant ]. To make it more robust, make voting for relevancy compulsory if voting for [ agree / disagree ].
But the reported stats is all moot if there's bot manipulation anyway. Also, people would most likely say it's relevant even if it's actually not, just because they agree with it
There was more of that in the early days of Reddit. At some point everyone abandoned that principle, and from them on every thread became more of a battle than a conversation.
I remember when Reddit's best "reading" threads just suddenly shifted. AITA, JustNoMIL, TalesFromTechSupport, TalesFromRetail, all of a sudden they went from realistic stories of real people venting to... just obvious rage bait. It was so disappointing. It was one of the best things to read on the bus, here's someone going through something, can offer support, laugh about it, whatever.
It went from stories like "I had someone demand a manager when I wouldn't offer them 40% off" to "someone pulled a gun on me at work, and my manager told me I should have punched them". Just such horrible bullshit. That's when I knew the site was going downhill.
I regularly suggest people to block those communities, or consider an alt to follow those
I really agree with the excessive news e politics comunitties. I have a hard time setting a good feed 'cause of that
The universal problem is that there’s no shared definition of what a downvote represents. Is it “this is spam and should be removed”? “I don’t like this”? “This doesn’t belong here”? “I want to see less of this”? “I disagree”?
That’s not even a Reddit problem - it’s innate to any social media voting apparatus. Extend it to Facebook, even. Does the laugh reaction mean I’m laughing with you or at you?
Most comments and posts I’ve downvoted have been because I accidentally swiped too far right and my upvote changed to the downvote action and I didn’t even notice. So those downvotes don’t even mean anything!
I think the right answer is to stop worrying about votes. Even if they all mean the same thing they’re still meaningless. It’s better to change your post and comment sorting setting than to try to social engineer a way out of it.
+1 and -1 is not representative of the full of ways you can feel about a content. This is what happens when convenience for the system outweights human expression.
+i
-1/12
Giving someone 1+2+3+4+5+... votes seems excessive
Normal humans would understand that by amplitude, I probably meant a x/10 score. And then the algorithm would put that in context of every other score your account has given out to properly weight relative to your baseline. Then perform sentiment analysis on that specific post relative to all the other posts you've passed judgement on as context and isolate your relative score with respect to that specific sentiment.
Dude, it was just a maths joke and I wasn't even replying to you
-1/12 is the result of putting the sum of all the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc) through the Riemann zeta function.
Get off your snarky high horse and treat people with kindness.
"Normal humans" good gracious.
OK sorry but it sounds like your saying "votes with values other than +1 and -1 ? Ridiculous ! What next ? downvotes of amplitude -1/12 ? Cats and dogs living together ?"
Which I assume the reason the designers of these platform only give us binary +1 and -1 expression and that's IF they don't take away the negative option entirely.
In my defence I plead reddit brain
Thinking scores are "added" is part of the problem. 5000 people voting 1/10 is not equal to 500 upvotes.
One thing I always liked about slashdot is the ability to tag votes with things like "funny" or "informative".
Ultimately moderators do not wish to cede any discussion shaping power to the unwashed masses.
Reddiquette says
If people followed that there would be no problem.
Unfortunately, the downvote button is mostly used as an "I disagree" / "I don't like your opinion" button.
Vice versa, I think Reddit upvoted a lot of the same old boring memes/jokes with the idea that maybe they would benefit if they get there first then next time.
Any post related to WWII, Top comment: "I did nazi that coming" 10,000 upvotes.
It's not that bad on Lemmy but I have noticed an up tick in non helpful very unoriginal jokes in threads with serious topics.
Someone replied to you with the expected use is the downvote button, but contrary to your comment, I believe there is a de facto use of the button and it more or less corresponds to your "I don't like this" interpretation.
Now, they could have done something to address this issue, even completely eliminate the downvote button. I don't think they will do it any time soon because it would affect their profit.
It makes me wonder—would the dynamic change if there was only an upvote? So you could choose not to upvote, but the default action would be a neutral one, and if you liked/wanted to support/etc you could signal that.
I see tons of posts on here now that are downvoted to oblivion, because they are a legitimate article that says something a group doesn’t like. There won’t even be comments on the post. So like a Reuter article that discusses Palestinian casualties and no comments and like -20. This doesn’t seem like a super useful mechanism. Or at least, it’s just functioning today as a content preference “I don’t want to see this typed content” as opposed to “this is bad info, out of line with the community, etc.”
And despite ranking my list by either hot, or top day/six hours, I still see the downvoted posts regularly so the mechanic doesn’t even really do anything in terms of visibility. Or possibly there’s just too little content on a given community for it to get filtered out.
Not sure if you realize, but a lemmy instance can turn off downvotes for the entire instance. So we'll see if instances with downvotes disabled will do better.
No I didn’t know that, would be interesting to see more of them try it, just for curiositys sake.
Blajah doesn't have downvotes, so I can't downvote anyone and also can't see if anyone downvotes me. It has helped me break free of the Reddit hivemind and truly be myself.
I think the difference is when you have a small group everyone sort of considers themselves co-custodians of a space—lifting each other up and helping people integrate. But get enough people and it starts getting exhausting constantly trying to enforce norms against an ever growing community of people who don't understand or respect them. It's like social enshittification.
I think we need to consider the norms Lemmites enforce. From what I've experienced: it's often nitpicks ("I think one thing you said is wrong"), or mild insults when an opinion is outside our slightly-left-of-centre POV. Disagreement is rarely friendly, gentle, or constructive.
From what I've seen, we're great at getting the big stuff right - people react quickly against child porn or overt racism/insults. But we reply with the same anger if someone has an opinion different from ours.
I have a better time in small Reddit communities because people have more shared interests. Here our prime commonality is that we like FOSS and dislike Reddit.
Hey fuck you! That’s total bullshit and you know it!!
Not a single comma. Tch tch tch.
I think this happens. I know I've done it but I've expressly stated my agreement with everything else but hey this one thing needs examination. I think sometimes people leave that part unsaid and maybe they forgot or maybe they just don't have good arguments against.
Note I'm not mentioning anything else. It's because I largely agree with what you've said or don't think a counterpoint would be helpful.
At this point I start with a big "I agree" and state something about it, so we have some common ground. Then, if I have further questions/disagreement then I mention it.
It's the eternal September.
Too much growth too fast for sure! Much harder for Lemmy to create its own culture and maintain it. Much harder to discourage toxicity. Notice how healthy communities are often smaller.
Sucks for niche communities but they'll get slowly spun up over time, and in the meantime they can be found in other places including Reddit. I don't personally need everything to be a one-stop shop.
I'm old enough to remember the start of eternal September. It hasn't stopped yet.
I don't recall when I first started using the internet. Late 80's or very early 90's. No WWW back then. It was all IRC and gopher and newsgroups and other things I don't remember. I lived near MSU, so I could dial in for free because it was a local call.
And then once you got in, it was hard to find anything to actually do. It kinda felt like exploring Mars. But eventually I found things. Very exclusive club and very good times that I miss. No advertisements. No one trying to make a sale.
Even the world wide web felt like that until shockingly recently. I remember circa 2005 just typing in random words .com and seeing what you'd find, or discovering a cool new website by word of mouth at school.
I remember vising pig.com and discovering a delightful page consisting of nothing more than a giant picture of a pig and the text "this domain is for sale" that lasted years. These days it's probably one of those shitty for sale landing pages.
We've absolutely got hive minds here - it requires extremely good and dedicated moderators to keep in check but one thing that might help is adopting my favorite hackernews rule... you are prohibited from downvoting any comments that are direct replies to your comment. That single block works pretty effectively to untrain the habit of "downvote what I disagree with".
We also have a problem on lemmy that there is a subset of users who think that votes are how you curate your feed. They downvote anything that they don't want to see instead of blocking communities that they aren't interested in.
Consequence of lack of onboarding. Would be easily fixed by popping up instructions for voting and feed shaping the first time a new user votes.
Quora may be exacerbating the behaviour by automatically blocking topics when you downvote questions. They also downvote a question for you when you only want to report it for something. The downvote remains after the reported issue has been corrected.
probably an unpopular view but tbh i think voting has ruined modern forums
firstly its much much easier to game, and for big platforms to fake
but more to the point, voting makes excellent sense when the topic is something with a clearly provable right/wrong answer. eg. technical questions are ideal for voting, where the wrong information does belong at the bottom because its simply wrong and in most cases most people can easily verify if it works or doesn't work.
instead we get voting for everything now, so it merely becomes a poll of opinions not facts, but unfortunately our monkey brains sees the numbers and somewhat equates emotions with facts.
oldschool forums ALREADY HAD a poll feature, so when we wanted a poll we could get one. now everything is a poll, and when everything is a poll nothing is especially meaningful.
I feel so stupid lol. I'm on a bunch of random forums still that I've been visiting since the early 2000's and trying to figure out why things go so bad socially (grouping/instance hating/etc) on platforms like this so quick. There's no voting on any of them, it's such a baked-in thing here and on reddit and so foreign on forums that I just didn't consider it for some reason. There's definitely dissent or butting heads but it usually just fizzles out and doesn't carry onto other posts (unless two users really hate each other, always happens unfortunately).
aye exactly. since voting is apparently a big thing now, if we have to work within it, some ideas might help such as mentioned above where hackernews prevents downvoting replies to you.
some other ideas
permit upvoting but downvotes require a textbox reply (imo downvoting without a valid explanation is just noise, and we want signal over noise right?)
self posts not being upvoted (all posts start at 0)
i really like how lemmy shows both up & down rather than final value on alot of sites
no voting until you 'earn your stripes'. not perfect, but somewhat helps at keeping voting within domain expertise.
eg. i 'fucking love science', but just because an answer feels nice to me on nuclear rocket surgery doesn't mean my vote should count. let alone be equal to someone with expertise
Whenever I saw someone complaining about the "hivemind" over there, they were invariably whining about people not liking their unpopular opinion on something. When you say "hivemind" you are equating anyone with that opinion to insects/drones/NPC etc. Just because you're different doesn't mean you're right.
There's an old saying about how if everywhere smells like dogshit, it's best to check under one's shoe.
I think some people accuse others of being in a "hivemind" in a way that's like they brought the Reddit with them, in particular the presumed sense of superiority over the hivemind/sheeple/"NPCs"/whatever.
fair point, using negative language while looking for engagement and conversation isn't the best start. Do you have a better descriptive I can use and possibly edit the post with? (genuinely asking, I would enjoy everyone's opinion)
I think your premise is flawed. There's no such thing as a "hivemind" or what it implies. Opinions will exist on a spectrum of popular to unpopular depending on the community they're posted in. I would say that those descriptors are perfectly adequate as they are.
I'm finding it difficult to respond because of the "popular to unpopular" description you've applied. I feel like by definition that in itself is a "hivemind". So maybe like you said the entire premise is flawed. For someone wanting lemmy to succeed as a place where discussions and opinions can be shared and open, whats a positive aspect that you feel could encourage that type of engagement?
I don't really understand what it is you're after. Do you want a place where people only get positive reception no matter what they say? Maybe that exists in a group therapy session, but I don't think that's what you're asking for. Is it?
Is it about getting down voted? Who cares? You can't control how other people react to your opinions and you shouldn't try. Lemmy is diverse and it is federated. Each instance and community has its own rules and culture. If you don't find any of the communities to your particular liking, you can always start some of your own.
For the first part, no not a group therapy session lol. "thoughtful reception" is probably a better apt description. You can definitely have a level of control for how your opinion is received with your attitude and how you engage in a conversation. A space and how conversation is conducted usually sets a precedence, the tools available to you with how you interact with that content is another part of it.
I was just looking for conversations about this style of social platform and the known problems that seem to inflict it. I want Lemmy to stay diverse and federated, I'm seeing a concerning trend of tribalism revolving around instance membership or interaction. As you said I can start a community if I'm looking for something else, which I have done. Starting a new corner of lemmy to stretch out in has been a wonderful experience and has helped me focus on something I want to be creative and engage with instead of wandering around Lemmy "all".
But, I can't help but wonder if that's the downfall. I've been instance hoping a lot lately, it's amazing to see what's been hidden that I'm not seeing and as spaces become more condensed or closed off through defederation the stark contrast between instances is only going to grow. Basically mini-reddits (the negative parts of it), instead of spaces being smaller to allow more chances to not drown out a differing opinion. So am I contributing to this or refuting it by making my own community? Do I have a chance to avoid the main opinions becoming the mindset that others want to follow when engaging or is it just an uphill battle because of the format of this social platform. A lot of really interesting and thoughtful responses in this post, exactly what I'm looking for in community discussions and there's been barely any hate or downvotes. It's been refreshing and given me plenty to think about.
Communities tend to attract like minded individuals. It's not that everyone is exactly the same, but those that are very different or have very different opinions don't generally stay for long. That said, even within those like minded individuals there's a wide spectrum of opinions.
For me there are a handful of topics I know I'll get down voted for sharing, because it goes against the majority. And that's fine, it doesn't stop me from sharing my opinion, and I don't really mind the downvotes. I think in general though as long as you're able to share your opinion with nuance and self awareness, and it's not something mean or hateful people will hear you out.
I had some subs that I spent a lot of time in.
People would occasionally complain about the hivemind in one in particular whenever they'd get comments deleted or downvoted.
I'd tell them, "No, there's a significant portion of the sub that agrees with you -- we see these debates here often, and have plenty of people on both sides, including yours. Your comment just sucks". Invariably, they'd have broken some rule or were just being an asshole, and mods or the downvoters didn't like it.
if we can avoid Lemmy's most active city being Eglin Air Force Base, we just might be able to avoid the hive mind
Shills bots and feds haha
When you got no friends, you can count on them to provide healthy engagement every single time
Moderation and mods being accountable.
Public modlogs help a lot
I was thinking the same thing. Reddit is a cesspool because communities shut out anyone who dissents with a group's opinions, allowing the group to continue thinking "everyone" believes the same thing they do. Sure it's a good thing for mods to be able to quickly block obvious troublemakers, but there needs to be an unbiased review process in place when someone is kicked out simply for disagreeing or asking legitimate questions. Echo chambers are bad.
Telling someone they're disgusting for being POC or LGBT+ is a good example of an action that deserves an immediate ban. Asking someone what policies a political figure implemented that benefited you should NOT be a reason for a ban, especially if you're only banning them because you can't answer the question.
I'm not quite sure how the process works on Lemmy, but I feel like moderation should include incremental periods. Like the first time you get blocked for a day, then a week, then a month, and finally a permanent ban. And a person should be able to request a review of their ban, which would be judged by a panel of mods from random groups and instances to limit people of like minds all piling on for the same butt-hurt feelings. There should be ways to make things more fair than just reddit's policy of an invisible admin making decisions based on their mood that day.
On Lemmy the safeguard to mod abuse is instance admins. On Reddit this can take place, but rarely does. The only time admins on Reddit really step in is when mods are allowing illegal behaviour on their sub, or when mods are protesting against their own shitty behaviour. But on Lemmy it's much easier to reach out to an instance's admins if something is going wrong. Mod actions are all public, so you can create a post explaining what happened and it's not just a "he said/she said" situation.
If they aren't being responsive to feedback, the appropriate response is to start up a new community, preferably on a different instance. Or, in the extreme case, to block that instance entirely. You can even build a consensus to doing this with a "panel" consisting of...every user on the platform. That's essentially how !tenforward@lemmy.world became the de facto Star Trek meme community, rather than !risa@startrek.website, after the mods of the latter community were shown to be abusing their powers and the instance admins refused to take remedial action.
Moderation is a big part. Heavily libbed up mods such as the Lemmy.World ones are only allowing one perspective to be posted. Which is why the place is slowly turning into Reddit
This is done in three ways:
Restricting what content is allowed to be posted using made up metrics like MBFC or calling anything they don't like an opinion piece.
Allowing users to insult those with differing opinions EG call them Russian bots or Trump supporters and only banning users when they insult those trolls back.
.World/WorldNews style just banning anyone who doesn't have a Biden style Zionist worldview.
The centralization around .World is one of the biggest issues facing Lemmy right now.
I had the same opinion. It's absolutely moderation that reduces the amount of acceptable opinion and behavior. I can't even have good faith discussions on controversial topics on multiple platforms because I am vaguely aware of what is considered the 'right' opinion.
A truly liberal mindset and healthy community would allow controversial opinions, but classic liberalism is demonized now in favor of absolutist values for conduct and morality.
So here's what happens. When a person says a controversial thing and they're banned, silenced, or shadow banned it reduces the amount of incidence for the offending opinion in that community, people who see the ban with the same opinion that want to participate in the community are left with choosing silence ( giving the impression that opinion was not common ) or additionally defending the person actioned against, which then also risks their removal from that community.
It's really that simple. Moderation in my opinion should only go after the real problematic illegal stuff, but we shouldn't be moderating out the actual good faith opinions that people have.
i was wondering if i was the only one that felt this way; since i keep getting banned and named called on lemmy.world and shitjustworks every time i try to let newbie leftists posters know that lemmy.world doesn't not represent the lemmyverse and that they'll get a much better experience if they try almost any other instance.
You're absolutely not the only one. My first Lemmy instance was .world, but I eventually left when I noticed that they were kinda manipulating their userbase to consent to an eventual defederation from .ml, on the grounds that it's a "tankie" instance. The .world admins are really quick to ban any communist instance or community, and if all of them are banned, they just outright make shit up.
That was the red flag that made me jump ship, but honestly I don't regret it at all. I didn't truly realize the scope of .world manipulation until I started seeing Lemmy from a different instance.
Yeah, good point. I think it's best to have multiple instances with similar subs so you can always move over easily. People should also make their accounts on different instances and be a bit more active there.
The structure of Reddit’s content aggregation and curation leads to a regression to the mean. Things that are broadly agreed-upon, even if wrong, are amplified, and things that are controversial, even if correct, are attenuated. What floats to the top is whatever the hive mind agrees is least objectionable to the most people.
One solution that seems to work elsewhere is to disable downvoting. Downvoting makes it too easy to suppress controversial perspectives. Someone could put forward a thoughtful position on something, and if a few people don’t like the title and hit the downvote button, that post may be effectively buried. No rebuttal, no discourse, just “I don’t like this, make it go away.” Removing the downvote means if you don’t like something, you can either ignore it, or you can put effort into responding to it.
The “downvote to disagree” thing isn’t just an attitude problem, it’s a structural issue. No amount of asking people nicely to obey site etiquette will change the fact that the downvote button is a disagree button. If you don’t want a hive mind, you necessarily need to be able to allow for things you don’t like to be amplified.
Twitter is actually better for this than Reddit because it has the quote function. You can amplify something you don’t like as a way of getting other people to hate it with you. It’s not perfect, but there’s no way of having it both ways. “Reddiquette” was never a real thing, just a polite fiction that ignores the Eternal September world that we live in.
If you have the same structure as Reddit, you will recreate Reddit. Lemmy isn’t going to be different if all the incentives and interactive elements are the same.
I'm not sure I agree that disabling downvoting really solves the problem. It might help, but not a huge amount. Because you still end up with people upvoting stuff they like and not upvoting stuff they don't. So instead of being +1/-1 it becomes +1/+0. The stuff that they would have downvoted still ends up sinking towards the bottom, just perhaps not quite as quickly as otherwise.
I do think your thoughts about quote Xits are really interesting though. It's a two-edged sword. On the one hand, by amplifying what you're disagreeing with you do also provide an opportunity for more people (rather than less, as on Reddit) to be exposed to it, potentially changing their mind. On the other hand, it's a tool ripe for abuse and creating more harassment, especially since the people you're amplifying it to are usually primed to agree with you.
Actually, with enough interactions from different people (ie: enough data points) Lemmy should be able to determine if a comment brings value to the conversation (either positive or negative) or if it's noise that should be ignored (and prioritized lower).
If you have 4 comments:
It's obvious that 1 and 3 are providing more to the conversation than 2. 4 is a bit of an outlier, but probably provides more value than 2.
Regarding 3: The challenge would be that there's a low chance that there will be such a wide margin of upvotes/downvotes. Due to the hive mind, the voting will probably look like 30 upvotes and 130 downvotes. So, there would need to be a weight accordingly, so those fewer upvotes had a greater impact (in terms of sorting and scoring comments)
Reddit has a "sort by controversial" algorithm that seems to be missing from Lemmy (or maybe it's hidden in the “what's hot" - I haven't looked at the code).
It would be awesome (and resource intensive) if Lemmy could provide the federated instances with custom sorting algorithms. It would allow federated instances to be unique, provide some playful competition, and given the open source nature of Lemmy - I'm sure these algorithms would be open sourced, which would improve the entire Lemmy ecosystem as a whole.
You're assuming that downvotes only come from individual users with good-faith opinions there.
Relying upon an automated system to decide the "value of a conversation" is, and will continue to be, an open invitation to gamify, metagame, and manipulate such automated systems, just as it was on Reddit and elsewhere.
A lot of the issues on Reddit is a human problem. I agree – solutions need to be built into the platform itself, by thoughtful design. It makes less work for the mods too.
Literally nothing can be done to avoid it. The "Reddit hivemind" is the human hivemind. When enough people start contributing to a certain community, certain ideas usually unanimously shared between individuals get boosted up to the top and become general consensus.
Weird how those ideas of yours usually correspond with something western politicians and think thanks spout on the daily.
Weird how non western ideas that somehow survive deletion are usually downvoted to oblivion or flagged and hidden.
Weird how Reddit hired a literal CIA agent to manage their content even though said person had zero experience working that role.
Weird weird weird
But everything at all times is the Reddit hivemind. Nothing can change or improve. Reddit is inevitable.
Reddit doesn't represent the entirety of humanity. It represents a specifically self-selecting group of people that tend to come from a combination of converging material conditions that allow them access to the site, and site retention for each user depends on whether that user is likely to opt into that particular group's increasingly-ossified norms that are provided superficial but effective incentives to continue doing so by the site's owners.
Social groups can and do change over time, and some are better or worse off in varying ways, and they are not all "Reddit hiveminds" unless you are lazily equivocating all human social structures as "hiveminds." What else is there? Some fantasy of rugged Randian individualism?
To say otherwise is useless fatalism, or at the least, false equivocation.
I think you missed their point. Yes, the specific beliefs held by the Reddit hivemind are specific to that platform. But the idea that Reddit has a hivemind is a natural human factor. So Reddit's hivemind might be a centre-left liberal hivemind, HN's might be more libertarian, and Lemmy's is more leftist. But there's some degree of hivemind on any platform that exposes users too each others' content and where participating in those public discussions is the point.
A site like YouTube or Facebook lacks as much of a hivemind effect, because people aren't on there for the discussion. They're on YT for the videos, or on FB largely for their friends. Though both YT and FB comment sections are also proof that lacking a hivemind is also not a sign of quality.
Users upvoting/downvoting leads to a hivemind, even if the moderation is not complicit (which it often is).
I like hiding votes until you've voted. Allowing users, communities, or instances to change how posts/comments are sorted might help too.
They hive mind is just as strong on lemmy as it is on Reddit. which has led me to wind-down my engagement on lemmy and will very soon drop it all together. going back to RSS I guess or might try nostr next.
If users were able to migrate their accounts that could help against centralization
What is that you care to preserve? Can't you just register a new account and kill the old one? (genuinely curious)
Many users have stated they would like to keep their comment history and subscriptions. Move their account to a different instance. Having to start from scratch is a big hassle.
The fediverse concept is great but users are locked into the instance they create their accounts on. With so many instances it is better to just start somewhere and figure out what's what later.
So far I am happy with my instance. But if I ever change my mind it would help if migration was simple.
Great point, are the lemmy devs (idk if it works that way?) aware of this?
Remove downvotes. Unironically, its a good idea. Requires people to actually engage with something if they disagree rather than just downvote and move on. Gets people talking & raises user engagement. Will be an uptick in shitflinging for a short while till all the assholes out themselves, get banned, and site culture improves from that alone.
Fully agree, down votes are toxic and the fact that reddit has them should be a tell.
One of my several Reddit accounts followed that principle: only upvotes allowed, no downvotes. Then, when I said that in a comment someone discussed with me how stupid they thought that practice was. They believe it was completely undesirable for Reddit, citing what happened in YouTube after they removed the downvote option. I didn't care to understand, but that experience allowed me to develop a perennial restraint for hitting the downvote button. I use it scarcely against what I'm convinced are trolls.
i've seen this in a few instances and i think it's made them better
It was moderation and up/down votes influencing comment order.
On reddit you are punished very harshly for downvotes. Your comment gets put at the bottom, hidden and you get rate limited so you can only comment once every 10mins. Mods also nuke threads that go against their ideals and perm ban people in those threads.
Reddit culture shifted a lot during 2015 and the site mods felt they needed to control the discourse.
I don't know how we would fix that problem but I feel like instances and a modlog goes a long way
It has to be down to the moderation. Admins and Moderators have to step up and stamp out what they feel is infecting the community.
Too many times I've seen in history where, if you do not have an active mod team and allow people to run the asylum, you effectively have failed that community.
Lol... Mods enforce the hivemind.
Any critical analysis or questioning of the mods narrative leads to comment removal and bans.
Stop over-policing people. Just because you disagree with something someone says, doesnt mean you have a right or duty to shut them down
We talk about it as a hive mind, but I think it is actually a problem of large numbers of users and an algorithm that needs tweaking, plus some shady mods.
You post but you're too late, or you have a legit opinion that needs a few sub comments, but it's too late.
Or you get trolled, you respond in a similar vein, and the mod bans you but not them, because the mod likes their opinion more. And I don't blame mods for being soft in general, because it is a shit job. But sometimes it's frustrating.
Or you added a G-rated insult after a detailed explanation of how they're objectively wrong. Because god forbid anyone be the tiniest bit uncivil with someone going 'oh, so you think [infuriating horseshit]?'
Remember: trolling is explicitly forbidden, but any hint of suggesting someone might be trolling is worse somehow.
Imo, it likely was/is due to the voting system — and, in a similar sense, awards. Redditors want to increase their Karma scores and seem to, at least subconsciously, view it as clout. So, they'll create posts with the intent of farming these points — ie they post things that they know will get a specific response from the masses. What also doesn't help, and is something that Lemmy similarly suffers from, is that there generally is no established consensus on how votes should be used. An upvote could mean agreement, or that a post is funny, or that it's good quality, or that it's on topic for a community, etc. A downvote could mean that the person disagrees with the post, or that they think that it isn't relevant or they simply don't like the OP. In reality, all that votes do, at the fundamental level, is tell the algorithm where it should place posts (a personalized recommendation algorithm changes this a bit, but the effect is essentially the same) — a post with a large upvote to downvote to ratio gets shown higher up and, by extension, more than one with a smaller ratio. This creates a sort of feedback loop where the posts that get farmed for upvotes get shown more. People don't want their post to be buried, so they'll only post what they think will get upvotes. And since upvotes are usually used for things that illicit an "agreement" response, only posts that people agree with will be shown.
The solution to these issues, imo, is to create an obvious standard for how votes are used and change how they're interpreted by the algorithm. Imo, Facebook was on the right track with how they were using emojis as the voting method. People generally react to posts with emotion, and an emoji is a good representation of that. You could potentially still have an up/down form of vote (alongside the emotional voting options), but it would be standardized to only be used as a metric for relevance/importance/correctness. This could be enforced by moderation, if votes were publicly viewable, by allowing moderators to remove people that are vote brigading (not including emotional votes). Emotional votes probably shouldn't be considered by the algorithm so that emotional bias can be avoided. Or, at the very least, there should be different algorithms that take these voting types into account I'm different ways (eg if you only want funny posts, you could sort to primarily get posts with a laughing reaction). In addition to this, also removing the gamification aspect (not showing (at least not publicly) total scores on profiles).
You're right. Votes need to be used to encourage debate and not used to discourage wrong think.
Down votes should only be used for off topic/hateful/bad faith arguments etc and not just used because "I disagree".
I know that realistically, that's never going to happen but it would help!
Lemmy has the same deficient content sorting system. Just +1 or -1, no amplitude, no tagging just dumb total score plus hidden moderation interference shaping the discussion from the shadows.
The power triping mods. They made their way here. Twas indeed sad.
It's mod revolt that was lemmy's first big push. Unfortunately this means they are the major force shaping Lemmy in their image. They want unchanged reddit except they want their fiefdom secured and that's all we're getting. Lemmy is not the last stop in the slashdot->digg->reddit->Lemmy exodus. I just hope we're not stuck here another whole decade again.
I have a hypothesis that all the good people with a moral compass left Reddit in disgust over the API changes, and effectively being forced into using the official Reddit app. What remains of Reddit are the sociopathic assholes.
All the good posts left thats for sure. Now its just a bunch of kids asking stupid questions like "should i buy a X" or "is X worth it?".... idk maybe make a decision yourself
There's 3 facets.
This is the meme comments, whether they are internet lore (a way to signify that you were there) or simply just in on the joke.
Some communities are made to be in on the joke. Some communities are made to be informational and analytic. Even the latter communities will eventually have some jokes that occur, which over time will create a caste of those who are "in" on the joke.
In smaller, usually hobby communities, this generally isn't problematic. However in the wider internet, it's not uncommon for hate to be the joke, and spreading it being "in" on the joke.
Therefore, the hivemind is not inherently bad, as it is just a nature of community expectations that are connected through shared experiences over time. But just like we've seen through history, this can be pretty easily manipulated and people who don't have humanitarian beliefs in mind perpetuating that rhetoric.
In any case, to combat this, I think the community just needs to set specific expectations. GameFAQs forums would be a great example of having mostly problem-free hivemind, as video games have a specific meta-game that is developed over time and jokes from that shared experience (git gud, don't get hit, etc). The whole point of these forums was to talk about the game, from meme (before memes) to painstaking min-maxing, and the discussions of the community would revolve around this. The rules of the forums made it pretty hard to be overtly mean or engage in discussion that wasn't centered around the goal of the community.
It may be impossible to prevent such community-wide erosion especially on an individual basis, but I think the best one can do to at least not contribute to that erosion is maintaining a sense of vigilance about the foundational idea at the heart of Reddit's site-wide rot: "I am smarter than the out-group, and anything I do within the in-group to increase my score affirms that I am endlessly clever and funny."
Tildes is a good example of a healthy community that allows for differences while encouraging good faith discussion. They police for tone instead of wrongness and it's been working out over there. People are generally happy with the discourse.
A lot of it is in site design, too. There aren't downvotes, because they're not needed. There's a lot of proactive moderation coming from the community by using comment labels. Labels help push comments up or down, and some require you to type a reason why, which encourages thoughtfulness instead of knee-jerk hivemind reaction and pile on. The only publicly visible label is the "good" one, so it keeps things positive. The "bad" label alerts mods and has a cooldown time limit, so it's less likely to be abused. I believe once it's used on a comment, the person can no longer reply to it, which helps avoid negative back and forths.
Policing just tone is how you get very polite and nicely-worded conversations about
exterminating untermenschen"human biodiversity"Getting policed on tone sounds like hell. God forbid someone be angry at injustice.
Between the Boston bomber and the APIpocalypse it seemed to me like the hive mind got a lot better, even on Reddit. You could find a lot of different perspectives, and it was rare for one that's definitely wrong to stay on the top. Unless you just define "hive mind" as insufficiently conservative or whatever.
I thought they got a LOT worse after APIpocalypse. I couldn't go anywhere on Reddit without seeing people factioned up. It was like the only approved comments were the same circlejerk as before but with the added tendency to make Reddit look good. Kind of like only saying what you heard on Reddit and nothing else. Shit got lonely quick.
I'll take your word for it, lol. Lemmy's been so good I haven't really gone back.
Oh well thank god the wrong perspectives don’t stay at the top.
That shit goes back way before reddit. It was a problem on digg, on 4chan, somethingawful and other vbulletin forums, Usenet, etc. it will be a problem here and every place that comes after
It’s easier to just agree with the group than do critical thinking. It’s easier to just repost the same stupid tired joke someone else just made than to be clever. etc
Yeah I'm going to show my age here. But I've migrated from fidonet (bbs days) to Usenet. To slashdot. To digg. To Reddit. To Lemmy. And I'm 100% positive one day I'll migrate again.
Forums evolve and change. And once it changes go find your tribe again. Your peeps will still be out there especially this kinda tech leaning crowd.
I've stopped worrying about it. Humans are going to human.
The hivemind comes from people caring too much about their votes or karma. Nobody likes seeing their post or comment downvoted to oblivion so they'll play things safe and just post something they know everyone will agree with. I'm not sure you can have a voting system without having some kind of a hivemind.
Isolated communities sharing rigid points of view are a problem, but I think the voting system is to blame. When someone disagrees and downvotes as a consequence, it changes the way that comment is read by the next reader, this will likely generate inertia over the way the message is read in general through time.
I can't explain why I do like to read other people's comments. Most of the time I do not bother to engage in conversations with strangers, but Lemmy has several advantages over Reddit just because it doesn't count or publish people's "karma". It's a blessing that some instances of Lemmy can also hide the voting system altogether, which is the only way I can beat the anxiety of putting my thoughts out there. I think these elements make Reddit more addictive, because a "good" number in your comments and profile confirms your membership to a given community. I believe it also shapes a "correct" way of thinking.
IMO: tribal thinking.
It comes down to "they do not think like I want them to or they won't agree with me, so I will downvote posts."
Controversial topics are even more downvoting just to downvote.
The self-built echo chambers are already constructed; self-censorship and anything outside of their views and sources are dismissed, labeled, and smeared so as to not think about the information being shared.
It happens everywhere; the status quo is welcomed, while anything outside of it will seem controversial or extreme.
Reddit is notorious for astroturfing. The lemmy hivemind(s) is the lemmitor hivemind from people socialized on Reddit who came to lemmy and brought that shit with them. Same with other instances like .world, but worse because they have fewer legacy users.
The worst is when a business are the moderators of the subreddit about their business. This used to be against the rules, I'm pretty sure, but was never enforced and I think at some point they silently dropped that rule. It creates a gross conflict of interest.
How it took over: liberalism
How to defeat it: agressive communist mods
No need to thank me 😌
Unfortunately I think people downvoting things they disagree with is kind of inevitable. People are notoriously combative online, and if they're given an option to drown someone out, they're going to abuse it. And that makes it even easier for any sort of hivemind to kick in.
I personally don't know a better system, but it's not perfect.
We need proper platforms for discussion. Reddit isn't such a platform.
The reddit mechanic of using upvotes and using a sorting function optimized for engagement leads to unfavorable second order mechanics.
I'm not gonna share my thoughts on how to fix this. There are certainly experts out there who know more than me about game theory and rhetoric.
I think one advantage lemmy might have is the possibility of expanding the number of sorting metrics allowing users to sort things the way they choose rather than a few monolithic sort options.
I have a conspiracy theory take on it; I think Reddit is run by fascist admins trying to push a fascist ideology and that's why it's so toxic. I think techbros that run corporate social media platforms are all fash.
All the factors. I think this is more likely not a discrete case
I suspect a lack of critical thinking. Respond first, ask questions later or not at all.
It's friendliness of the community and willingness to treat randos with respect. Responses here seem to fit a general pattern of "I agree and...", or "you're wrong and stupid".
I generally have a better experience on Reddit. I'm less likely to get responses, but I get fewer downvotes there and the responses are usually nicer.
There's a number of instances that don't have downvotes. Notably, it forces each person who takes issue with something you've said to respond to you if nobody else has said it. Whether that's better is up to you.
In my experience the lack of downvotes does make for a better instance.
I've no strong feelings on the matter, but I can understand how some would feel 10 people telling you exactly how you're wrong can feel worse than 10 downvotes.
I avoid this by simply being correct all the time.
I really need to work on that.
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”
— Agent K, Men In Black
In group/out group dynamics are fueled by insecurity and ignorance. Reddit (the internet/humanity) is full of people who are scared of being outcasts and do not know themselves well enough to be confident. Often for good reason because there are swathes of people who will punish them for not going along with the group. The punishments are almost always disproportionate to the transgression, and continually escalate as the in-group feels completely justified in their actions due to confirmation bias.
In the case of reddit's main demographic these are young, typically nerdy men who have experienced being outcasts, and not a whole lot else - who now relish the thought of finally being part of the in-group. They will go far out of their way to prove they belong, even if it means handling themselves in a hypocritical manner and giving up their unique interests to mirror the majority of the group. Those who do not either leave, get labeled as contrarian (and summarily dismissed) or actually go fully contrarian (not like the other girls~~)
The entirety of modern social media being built around Trends™ is all you need to see how weak people's identities really are. It's part of why people who are authentically themselves (Trump, Walz) are viewed as strong depending on which side of the divide you fall on. People are so busy faking it to fit in (in fear of real consequences), they've outsourced their entire being to the trends of the group they mostly identify with.
It's fully baked in to small town American identity, and even those who can see how absurd it is will still be forced to choose between unjustified torment, conformity, or leaving. One of those options is safe, the other two are risky or outright dangerous. All three options reinforce the belief of the in-group that their choice is the way it's meant to be.
In short: people are really weak and we live in a culture that has preyed on this for centuries under the threat of violence.
I see it just as extension to "cancel culture" in IRL society. Nothing complicated just same stuff pushed from media comes to the web. Much helped by algorithms that are supporting it.
It is not only reddit, whole public internet is just an echo chamber, with no critical opinion allowed.
Every topic in current society (at least Europe+North America, I don't know what's happening in the rest of the world) is either black or white and no in between. Very scary place we are in currently. And people put you in some category just based on one sentence, one though, one idea.
I don't see anything special here or on reddit that is not happening in other parts of our society.
Maybe fediverse is so clean you can see it happening live, just look at any defederation request and what they think of different opinions. Different opinion is forbidden. I never thought we will ger to this point, I believed internet will give us freedom of speech and freedom to discuss. But so many topics have become dangerous.
Political correctness leads to hivemind 100%, because people are afraid to be ostracized.