Many countries have private prisons.

Not saying it's fine, just that stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

You've pooped 3x today? No, you've been backed up for 3 days? No... Maybe, you just wanted to help prove my point... Either way, thank you for the interaction.

I deleted 9 years worth of user content, across 5 different reddit accounts. Followed by CCPA "Delete My Data" demands, on each account.

It's almost as if, a large majority of reddit users are spineless, or consider their useless internet clout points more valuable than a small sense of morality...

A temporary blackout is not a protest compared to this method.

For those wondering... TamperMonkey browser add-on with RedditHistorySanitizer userscript (https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/23605-reddit-history-sanitizer/code). It's kinda slow, but much faster than doing it manually!

what buttons does the user see?

Voting options could still exist, the point is that the metrics are hidden (when it's something as simple as Up or Down). You wouldn't see how many people agree or disagree with a post or the content the've decided to post. Discouraging the countless accounts who repost the same memes to the same communities multiples times per week.

I'm mostly going to just hit any or all of them when I like the content. And I'll click none of them when I dislike content

Ideally, there would be multiple options (engaging, comprehensive, shitpost, etc) but a user would only be allowed to select one, and wouldn't be able to submit it without reaching a specific character limit explaining their position. Albeit, some would just fill the character limit with emojis, no doubt. In turn, the hope is that the community would call out such behaviors because, admittedly...

I don't think the internet can be objective enough to make these reliably more useful than an upvote

...I might be naive and have more faith in people...

Should this thread's quality be treated differently based on my format?

The simplest answer is that it would be unlikely that a single user would be able to heavily influence that metric. More heavily weighing the amount of the engaged users.

but I don't think we should aspire to black box algorithms

I most assuredly agree. "Security through obscurity" has never been the correct answer. That's why we have open discussions, so more than just a few people can find the vulnerabilities. ;)

I'm trusting based on your writing that you're open to collective constructive criticism.

That's exactly why I'm here. I've never enjoyed most social media platforms, so when I heard people were migrating, I had to check it out. Come to find out, all these alternate, open platforms are just recreating the same disaster. Taking the, in my opinion, worst aspects of social platforms and trying to justify their continued usage...

Humans have spent a heck of a lot of time, money and effort trying to figure about it, and we still seem to get it wrong a lot haha.

Name one time when money has created something better than that which was created by a heartfelt, open source, community (don't actually LOL).

Again, I appreciate your input. It's why I'm here, to talk to people who actually care and want something better. How can we say we're moving forward and progressing when we're actually just revolving?

This is another great feature that I will add to my list of suggestions. Thank you. You are absolutely right in that "Post Has Been Answered" feature is absolutely necessary for these types of platforms. Ironically enough, your comment has the most downvotes while being the correct answer to the problem.

I've been pondering the concept of Reddit "karma," and I believe it's time for a serious discussion about its true nature and the impact it has on our communities. I've written multiple posts about this previously here on kbin (https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/95140/Dearest-developers-Stop-reinventing-the-wheel) with very mixed results in the engagement. Though I am still working on refining the argument.

While the idea behind karma is to provide users with a reputation score or social credit, I've noticed that it doesn't necessarily align with those intentions. Instead, it often serves as a reinforcement for users to stay within their comfort zones and echo chambers, stifling diverse perspectives and constructive dialogue.

One of the main issues I've observed is the tendency for downvoting to occur when a user expresses an opinion that goes against the prevailing sentiment within a particular community. Even if the opinion is well-thought-out, respectful, and contributes to meaningful conversations, it becomes a target for downvotes. This behavior discourages users from engaging or expressing differing viewpoints.

It's disheartening to witness how users can manipulate the system out of spite. Some individuals go as far as visiting other users' profiles and downvoting their past posts to deliberately lower their karma score. This kind of behavior further emphasizes how the current karma system is more of a reflection of how often a user participates in echo chambers that align with their views, rather than an accurate measure of their quality engagement or contribution to the community.

With that in mind, I propose that we reconsider the name of the point system to better reflect its actual usage. Here are a few alternative names that encapsulate the behavior we often see:

• Echo Chamber Score: Highlighting the tendency to reward users who stick to echo chambers and discourage exploration of different perspectives.

• Bias Points: The system measures a user's inclination to conform to specific biases or ideological groups.

• Conformity Score: The score reflects a user's adherence to the prevailing opinions within specific communities, rather than their engagement.

I believe a change in the name would serve as a wake-up call for the community, highlighting the importance of open-mindedness and respectful discourse. It would encourage users to think beyond their echo chambers and engage in meaningful conversations, even if they hold different opinions.

I've previously discussed how it would be more beneficial to leave the rep system in place, but keep the scores hidden to everyone besides the user of that profile. Another thing to think about is the way Steam has a rep system regarding VAC Bans. Instead of banning a profile completely, just some big red text on their profile noting which game or community there were banned from and how often.

I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this matter. What are your suggestions for improving the system to foster more open and constructive dialogue?

We all have the power to curate our own online spaces by using common features like blocking and reporting. Moderation on smaller platforms would certainly be rough though, depending on the amount of users or abusers said platforms happens to attract.

what I need is an easier way to tell the two groups apart

People tend to surround themselves with others who are like minded... Shielding themselves from opposition... This creation of echo chambers has very negative effects... Confirmation bias, limiting your understanding, stagnation of your ideas, and an increasing polarization surround the issues at hand. Seeking validation and interaction from people who disagree with our views promotes intellectual growth, critical thinking, and empathy.

It doesn't matter how good or bad someone's ideas are if you only have people telling you your ideas are great...

It is crucial to recognize that merely receiving praise and agreement from others, regardless of the quality of our ideas, does not lead to genuine progress or personal development. Acceptance of our views by others should not be expected if we are unwilling to embrace alternative viewpoints ourselves. As we as a society empathize more with marginalized communities, it becomes even more vital to create spaces that encourage open dialogue, understanding, and respect for diverse opinions.

Indeed, free speech has it's limitations. But, I implore you to engage with these people you try to shield yourself from... Destroy their arguments with logic. Downvoting them or having them banned does nothing to encourage intellectual growth from either side of the argument.

More often then not, there's nothing stopping them from coming back with a new account...

I deleted 9 years worth of user content, across 5 different reddit accounts. Followed by CCPA "Delete My Data" demands, on each account.

It's almost as if, a large majority of reddit users are spineless, or consider their useless internet clout points more valuable than a small sense of morality...

A temporary blackout is not a protest compared to this method.

For those wondering... TamperMonkey browser add-on with RedditHistorySanitizer userscript (https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/23605-reddit-history-sanitizer/code). It's kinda slow, but much faster than doing it manually!

Lefties think almost anything and nearly everything is racist or sexist...

They refuse to see the truth that, promoting social equity programs is discriminating against certain races and genders, to provide unfair advantages in favor of certain races and genders.

Lets discriminate against white males to help put an end to discrimination!

It doesn't work that way, you buffoons.

Instead of social equity, go create Social Goods... That are freely available to ALL people.

trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it...

False dichotomy: The article presents the argument as a binary choice between armed law enforcement on campus and restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This oversimplifies the issue and ignores other potential solutions or approaches to school safety.

Cherry-picked evidence: The article selectively presents examples and studies that support the argument against armed law enforcement on campuses while downplaying or omitting evidence that may contradict it. This creates a biased view of the topic.

Anecdotal evidence: The article relies on specific incidents, such as the Uvalde and Santa Fe shootings, to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. While these incidents are important to consider, they alone do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the issue.

Appeal to authority: The article quotes experts and studies to support its claims, presenting them as the definitive authority on the matter. However, there are conflicting studies and opinions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools, and relying solely on one set of experts or studies is misleading.

Hasty generalization: The article generalizes from specific cases or limited studies to make broad conclusions about the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. This ignores the complexities and variations in different school environments and security measures.

Ad hominem attack: The article includes a statement from Sen. Ted Cruz blaming others for politicizing the Uvalde shooting, implying that his argument for armed law enforcement is driven by political motivations rather than genuine concern for school safety. This attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

Lack of counterarguments: The article does not present counterarguments or alternative perspectives to the claim that armed law enforcement is an effective tool for keeping kids safe in schools. This one-sided presentation of the issue limits a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Overgeneralization of research findings: The article cites specific studies to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools. However, it fails to acknowledge the limitations of these studies and extrapolates their findings to make sweeping claims about the overall impact of armed officers in preventing school shootings.

It's important to critically evaluate the information presented in the article and consider a range of perspectives and evidence before drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

The article uses biased language when describing certain individuals and groups, such as referring to John Lott as a "pro-gun advocate" and Daniel Webster as someone who "disagreed with Lott's findings." This kind of language can influence readers' perceptions and is not conducive to an objective analysis.

The article presents opposing views but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the counterarguments. It briefly mentions that anti-gun advocates see different patterns in the statistical evidence, but it does not explore these alternative perspectives in depth or provide specific examples or studies that contradict Lott's findings.

The article heavily relies on the viewpoints of Daniel Webster and Louis Klarevas to challenge Lott's research. While it is valid to include different perspectives, the selective use of sources can create a skewed representation of the available evidence.

The article portrays Lott's research as flawed without providing substantial evidence to support this claim. It mentions that academics have criticized his work, but it does not delve into specific critiques or present a balanced assessment of the academic debates surrounding Lott's findings.

The article dismisses Lott's characterization of certain locations as gun-free zones because armed security personnel are present. However, it fails to address Lott's argument that shooters may target areas where civilians are not armed, regardless of the presence of armed guards or police officers. This oversight undermines the comprehensive evaluation of the issue.

The article briefly mentions that some academics have criticized Lott's methodology, but it does not provide a detailed analysis or explanation of these criticisms. Without a thorough examination of Lott's methods, readers are left without the necessary information to assess the validity and reliability of his research.

The article concludes that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of perpetrators of mass shootings or their relationship with gun restrictions. While this statement may be true to some extent, the article fails to provide a clear analysis of the available evidence and expert opinions. It leaves readers without a strong understanding of the topic.

Oh well, better luck next time...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315794349\_Adding\_More\_Police\_Is\_Unlikely\_to\_Reduce\_Crime\_A\_Meta-Analysis\_of\_Police\_Agency\_Size\_and\_Crime\_Research

The scope of the study is off topic as it discusses the size of a police force relative to the amount of crimes within an area. The proposed argument isn't about the size of police forces, it is about putting existing police in places which we deem important places worth protecting, such as the buildings in which our children congregate on a daily basis.

If you had half a brain, you would notice that tons of government buildings have armed security forces and they are rarely ever the target of mass shootings.

The article does not provide any context or summary of the research it is discussing. It jumps straight into discussing the findings without explaining the methodology or the scope of the study.

The article does not provide any in-text citations or references to support its claims. It mentions the number of studies analyzed and the conclusions drawn from them but does not provide specific examples or evidence from the research itself.

The article presents a binary view of the findings, stating that there is no consensus among the studies and that police agency size has no impact on crime. However, it fails to acknowledge the nuances and variations within the studies analyzed. It also does not discuss potential factors that may influence the relationship between police agency size and crime.

The article focuses solely on the impact of police agency size on crime and does not consider other important outcomes, such as officer health and safety or public perception of the police. This narrow focus limits the comprehensiveness of the analysis.

The article presents its conclusions as definitive and dismisses any other interpretations as contradicting theory, evidence, and common sense. However, it fails to address potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives, which weakens the overall credibility of the article.

The right is emotional and wants to manipulate you with flawed conclusions based on their feelings.

Hilarious to say such a thing when you are clearly letting your emotions control your opinions while putting faith in bunk "science". A true leftist, "trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it"...

stop posting this hateful bullshit

The spreading of ideas and differing perspectives through provoking conversation isn't "hateful bullshit" just because you and the echo chamber which you might align with disagree with it. Noting I've said, nor what was said in the video, is "hateful". Why are you often trying to control how other people speak and think?

It’s not a genocide, that’s not how genocide works

Sterilization is quite commonly associated with genocide. If you support it because it's voluntary. More power to you, I guess? I don't support the sterilization of anyone, but if it's voluntary, I guess that makes it acceptable in some people's eyes? Noted.

the idea that they can’t feel sexual pleasure is just categorically untrue

Yes, I agree that this idea is a stretch, unfortunately it was included in an otherwise thought provoking video.

I'm by no means asking for immediate action or implementation. just attempting to provoke discussion and thought into the topic. I both understand and appreciate what is already happening here and the level of effort it would take to redesign and roll out global changes.

we can't actually prevent all fear of judgement or backlash

Of course not, it would be foolish to think otherwise. This is the internet, hatred and controversy will always exist. However, you can lead a horse to water...

which can be very strong disagreement while staying within normal moderation limits.

In my mind, this is the preferred interaction. Users should always be able to see all perspectives within a discussion. It makes one think more about the content they are consuming, offers more context for the lurkers, and it's very simple for any user to block or hide any other user from future interactions (if that's what they feel is needed).

I propose making downvotes have no effect on reputation.

I didn't address my perspective regarding rep or karma, but I should have. This goes back to my previous point and another topic I didn't touch on, moderation. I agree with both proposals. A better system for troll-free magazines or online spaces MIGHT be as simple as looking at how many users have blocked a specific account. Though, it's likely to be more nuanced than this considering how passionate some people are certain issues.

a little upvote feels like the correct way to say "Nice!" vs no response and letting the author think they aren't being seen.

I was never much of a social media user, however, I think one thing that reddit did right was the awards. Unfortunately, the moderators likely didn't see any of that income (something to keep in mind considering the budding state of alt social platforms). Point being, I think something like that is much more rewarding than an upvote, while a conversation outweighs both.

vote counts have benefits for me, letting me feel the pulse of community response, and I'm idealistic about finding a healthy medium!

I'd argue that it isn't healthy at all. But this circles back to the clout chasing argument. I think healthy discussion is going to give a user more than an arrow can ever give, while also promoting critical thinking and the development of more substantial connections among users and the community.

Thank your for taking the time.

I watch tons of diverse YouTube channels, I'd argue that the voting metrics are actually useless to determine clickbait or not. Instead, a system like rep or karma would be more suited. There's also the ability to block an entire channel from your feed... How is relying on anonymous votes actually assisting in the avoidance of clickbait? You have zero context as to why a video is liked or disliked. It would be foolish to say "you should just be able to tell", because I get it, sometimes you really can't. But thankfully, SponsorBlock addon/extension exists and many users utilize it to skip directly to the good part of a video...

I agree with everything you've said in this thread. I submit that, not only should the voting system be anonymous, the results should be hidden from everyone, besides the user who is viewing their own account information or usage history.

By keeping the voting system anonymous, we avoid the possibility of blind conformity to the masses and facilitate a more free and safe community. With the aim of encouraging critical thinking and discouraging jumping to conclusions.

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. However...

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter. I understand and appreciate your viewpoint regarding the implementation of these tools. It's true that such tools can play a role in addressing and mitigating the spread of, what I would consider "useless content".

Upon reflecting on your comment, I also recognize that my own experiences and interactions within certain communities might contribute to my perception of the issue. It's possible that I have been engaging with communities that fundamentally do not align with my own values, thus cultivating my thoughts into this matter.

While there are valid reasons to consider the impact of limiting certain content, I also believe it's important to strike a balance and foster an environment that promotes open dialogue and critical thinking. We should encourage users to engage with different viewpoints and facilitate discussions that allow for the exploration of wisdom.

I believe we both agree that by engaging in constructive discussions, users can collectively work towards improving understanding, challenging misinformation, and ultimately fostering wiser and more informed conversations. Regardless of if those means are through memes or long form, discussion type content.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. I look forward to hearing any future input you have on the topic.

It's about encouraging people to have fun in other ways. Ways which require slightly more effort and, in the end, create a better community through active engagement.

I appreciate your perspective on the matter and you're right that it may appear less "fun" on the surface. But nothing would stop low effort responses, or as previously posted by another user, a response full of poop emojis. LOL

https://kbin.social/u/CoderKat
https://kbin.social/u/@lemann@lemmy.one

The other reassuring-type approach I've seen is replies challenging the individual's negative comment getting showered in upvotes

I proposed that the metrics (upvote/downvote) are hidden, not gone. Users would still have the ability to vote, the point is to avoid new users who are joining the discussion and instantly forming their opinions before actually engaging with the content. Be it full of love or full of hate, it's crucial to any community to uphold the principles of free speech.

Otherwise, you delve into becoming an echo chamber, regardless of if the ideas within that chamber are good or bad...

Something something, I never learned anything from a man who agreed with me... etc. - Somebody.

While downvoting can certainly provide a sense of validation and solidarity, it's important to remember that it is just one aspect of a larger ecosystem. Curating your own feed empowers individuals to shape their online experiences by blocking or reporting accounts that promote harmful or offensive content. While hate speech can be undesirable or harmful, it is indeed protected under the umbrella of free speech.

You are right that challenging the distasteful opinion happens often. However, seeking validation on the challenge is where we disagree. Encouraging critical thinking and engaging in respectful and thoughtful discussions are essential practices in fostering a healthier online discourse. Challenging negative comments with well-articulated counterarguments and promoting constructive dialogue is a much more powerful way to combat bigotry and promote understanding, especially when compared to an "us vs them" mindset.

By challenging these comments and promoting critical thinking, we can collectively create an environment that values empathy, inclusivity, and the exchange of diverse perspectives.

Thank you both for sharing your thoughts.

Fortunately for me, I'm not the one who is pretending to be a

fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

Or, a criminologist, crime analyst, and criminal justice researcher...

Scientists should strive to adhere to the principles of objectivity and impartiality in their research and analysis. The scientific method is designed to minimize bias and subjectivity in order to obtain reliable and valid results.

Why not just hop on twitter and search #seattlepride ? There's probably (maybe?) tons of businesses who partook in that circus and hashtagged all about it...

Otherwise. What exactly do you want? You said it plainly already...

superficial and pointless / feelgood buzzwords

What else can you honestly expect? That is exactly what most observance months or commemorative months are all about... Besides making people feel recognized and accepted, what do you think corporations should be spending their money on that would make potential customers feel better about themselves?

I already have though... I hope you have a better day, friend.

I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we've done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn't hard to do...

During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.

Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.

The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.

Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.

The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the "War on Drugs" policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality...

Good old "Drug War Joe".

We could discuss how countless groups of college libs attack people who they aren't intelligent enough to have a conversation with. Or how the libs are trying to coerce speech through legislation with their fantasies concerning deadnaming and misgendering.

Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and acting like children.

Restrictions on education about sexual orientation and gender identity, a ban on gender-affirming care, an anti-trans bathroom bill, and measures that limit academic freedom and allow healthcare providers to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

Or, for the people who don't follow the religion of LGBTism... Laws concerning a reality check. "Gender affirming care" is mislabeled, should be "gender denial". Bathrooms are segregated based on sex to protect women from sick or aggressive men.

These are all great things, these people need mental help, and being their "yes men" or playing into their fantasy is not the help they need.

Instead of seeking to lose a debate through name-calling, I encourage you to focus on constructive techniques that can foster a healthy discussion and lead to personal growth and learning.

It's called satire... If you cannot comprehend the joke, I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Have a great day!

If someone proposes an argument and another person tries to counter the proposed argument with the goal being to critically analyze the topic and challenge a position, the conversation becomes a "debate". Regardless of if the setting is formal or not. If you'd prefer to not call the conversation a debate, that's fine, Libs are well known for trying to redefine words to fit their narrative and the definition of debate itself varies depending on which source you query...

Since this isn't a formal debate and you were clear that you didn't think it's a debate at all, why then would you imply that the conversation must have a winner or a loser? Seems contradictory. I certainly didn't tell you that I won because I pointed out something that was seemingly obvious to everyone, besides yourself.

You seem generally confused as you lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation. If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your education. Maybe then you might be able to comprehend the joke and attack it's position and validity.

I truly hope you have a brighter future ahead of you. Best wishes.

Certainly aware and support their decision to have a means of protecting themselves and their loved ones. However, that is totally irrelevant to the idea that is being discussed here.

You sound like you are helping prove my point. Children need to be protected. So it makes no sense to prevent the placement of police outside of schools.

The unfortunate truth is that you likely don't see it that way and will instead try to coerce people to give up their guns.

Your comment clearly demonstrates your own bias. You are engaging in what is known as collective punishment or collective blame, unjustly punishing or mistreating individuals who may not have been involved in any wrongdoing, simply because they hold different beliefs or opinions than you and your group. This approach completely disregards the principles of individual responsibility and fairness, ignoring their individual actions and intentions.

Until an individual user posts racist or hateful speech, they deserve either the discussion they are looking for or, if you don't have anything constructive to say, ignore them and don't say anything at all.

It is crucial for you to recognize and acknowledge your bias, as it undermines the credibility and objectivity of your argument. By allowing it to dictate your actions, you are not fostering a constructive environment for discussion. You aren't considering their merit or engaging in meaningful dialogue.

It's important to remember that a person can hold bigoted views even if they actively advocate for social justice. Prejudiced or intolerant views towards a particular group of people, regardless of whether they are based on race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are equally unacceptable.

Remember, it is important to approach discussions with an open mind, respecting the diversity of opinions and perspectives. Only by doing so can we create an environment conducive to productive conversations and the exchange of ideas. Otherwise, we might as well create echo chamber magazines for everything. As an example, instead of "Politics" we'll need Left Politics, Right Politics, Center Politics, Top Left Politics, Top Right Politics, Bottom Left Politics, Bottom Right Politics............. etc.

+1 for Feedbro.

Please keep in mind this is something I've written in regards to all of these various social platforms, not just kbin...

Hiding Voting Metrics:
Voting metrics inadvertently lead to conformity and discourage users from expressing genuine opinions. Users should feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts and perspectives without fear of judgment or backlash.

Removing Emoji-Based Reactions:
The current practice of using emoji reactions as a means of interaction lacks depth and context. These reactions do not provide any insight into why a user liked, disliked, or loved a post... This change would promote more genuine interaction and create a space for nuanced conversations.

Discouraging Clout Chasing Behaviors:
Platforms can implement measures that limit the emphasis on popularity metrics. Introduce alternative ways to measure influence and impact (insightful comments, fostering discussions, valuable contributions). By shifting the focus from superficial metrics to meaningful engagement, platforms can create an environment that encourages authentic participation.

Promoting Content Quality and Relevance:
Hiding voting metrics and mitigating clout chasing behaviors allows platforms to prioritize quality and relevance. Engagement, interactions, relevance, and authenticity is used to determine the visibility of content. This approach ensures that valuable and meaningful content receives recognition, while reducing the emphasis on arbitrary popularity metrics.

Recognizing the Limitations of Memes:
While memes can be entertaining and lighthearted, they often lack the depth. Memes, while humorous, rarely foster in-depth discussions or promote the exchange of diverse perspectives. By highlighting the limitations of relying on meme-based content, platforms can encourage users to move beyond superficial engagement and embrace more substantive interactions.

This approach optimizes content organization by utilizing horizontal space before continuing vertically. This method ensures that users can browse through a larger number of posts allowing users to quickly scan and explore popular posts while maintaining a clear overview of the content available. Reorganizing the UX of platforms by adopting a mass display approach for content organization brings numerous benefits. It optimizes content visibility, promotes content diversity, and streamlines content organization. By presenting the most interacted-with content side-by-side (instead of most popular on top) and utilizing horizontal space effectively, platforms create a dynamic and engaging user experience.

This reimagined platform design enhances content discoverability, improves user engagement, and fosters a thriving online community that values quality and relevance.

There are tons of other aspects of this to discuss but I won't bother diving into them (new and unpopular posts receiving recognition, front page content dying off due to less interaction based on time decay, etc etc)

Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top.

Feel free to point out the misinformation and falsehoods in my previous comment, which you downvoted. LMFAO. Talks in circles, blatantly lies, provides no evidence... Sounds like a spineless leftists.

https://i.imgur.com/ogg4jOI.png

TamperMonkey browser add-on with RedditHistorySanitizer userscript (https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/23605-reddit-history-sanitizer/code). It's kinda slow, but much faster than doing it manually!

Nobody is keeping score, buddy. This includes you, apparently. It's sad to see people who are so conceited. But hey, you lie to yourself as much as you need to, whatever it takes to keep you feeling content. Have a great day, friend.

I understand the repetitive reasoning behind your perspective. However, the problem lies in your understanding, or lack there of, of misinformation.

Who do you propose is the arbiter of what qualifies as fact or fiction? Because you make it sound like you are qualified to know everything about everything with your ability to downvote... Or, do you think which ever argument is the most convincing to you, that's who is obviously correct...? Or are you more simple than even that and think, "this information is on TV so it MUST be correct!"

When you have a thousand qualified professionals saying the same thing, yet another thousand qualified professionals saying the opposite, what then becomes misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation? Are you still wearing a cloth mask outdoors and getting your boosters?

I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we've done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn't hard to do...

During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.

Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.

The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.

Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.

The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the "War on Drugs" policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality...

Good old "Drug War Joe".

one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.

Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and creating more disinformation.

It will, because leftists love to cry and moan on the internet.