This is more of a support question than an Ask Lemmy kind of question. I’m going to remove this post per rule #3 - check out the sidebar for suggestions on where you can get further support.
Identity seems to be an issue with the fediverse. I keep 2 active accounts, one on a Lemmy server and one on a Mastodon one. It gets extra confusing when I use Mastodon to post to a Lemmy community. Then, back in Lemmy, I see me but it’s not me but it is me.
I can see my lemmy.ml uer from mastodon and even communities (called groups on there).
From the smell of it it seems something that mastodon allows, for specific federated services, but it’s not out of the box for all activitypub fediversed services/instances
Edit: what i find strange is that there is a clear way to verify websites to me, with a rel=me relationship. But there is no clear way to say “those other federated identities are the same of me”.
I get that the rel=me way is well known and well used, but allowing for this concept in the protocol of a federated service seems to be important.
At least, I care about the concept of digital identity and I would think for a distributed and federated and ever evolving network like the fediverse, this would be quite a common place to be
I don’t think that there’s a single correct answer for that. Each case is a case; you need to balance how important are your political views vs. centralisation for you, and decide your course of action.
A few highlights:
The difference between a bag of spilling versus putting your eggs in different baskets is just point of view. More comms about the same topic = if one of them goes down, the others still survive.
Users can subscribe to multiple comms with the same topic. That’s what I do with cooking comms, for example - !cooking, !cooking, !food, I’m in all of them, and I (as a user) see no problem with this.
Somewhere down the road I predict that the devs will going to allow users (or perhaps the mods) to “group” comms across instances, to visualise their content together. So the bag of spilling will get better over time.
Remember that comms don’t just abide to the instance rules, they also set up their own rules. If your issue with the instance is that it lacks a specific rule that you feel to be important, you might want to talk with its mods to actively set that rule up.
Based on that I think that the problem is smaller than it looks like. If you don’t like the comm about that topic, for whatever reason (including the instance that it’s hosted on), by all means, create another elsewhere.
Sorry I asked the wrong question. I’ve updated it. My question should have been specific to Threads federation. You can see my clarifie point of view in another comment
On broad strokes my answer is still the same, we need to weight both things. It’s just that in the case of Threads the political factor weights too much, for anyone who cares about the Fediverse, that “build your own comm elsewhere, don’t use Threads or instances federating with it” should be the default answer.
I always wondered whether it’s flora and fauna dependent to some extent, so some people have bacteria that don’t damage the teeth and other have the nasty ones and have a constant battle.
I’m 80% once a day [night time] and touch wood, only ever had one filling needed and that was back in 2009. Bro sciencing it but I chalk it up to drinking a lot of water and shlooshing my mouth out after meals, especially if i’ve had orange juice, ice cream or other not good for teeth stuff. A bit of gum maybe too, but I don’t know how much of BigGum fills our heads with random fake science.
I did have a ‘uh-oh’ phase a few months ago where my teeth were super sensitive, but some Sensodyne, mouthwash and twice daily sorted it out and now i’m fine again…and back to my old habits lol; enamel must of taken a lil beating.
Dentist says things are always fine, so I just keep it up /shrug
That could be it. I don’t know YouTube’s algorithm, but typically they work by finding what other users watch the videos you watch and recommending you other videos those people also watched. I wouldn’t be surprised if the guys watching blacksmithing videos also tend to watch Joe Rogan and the like.
It’s because you are a guy in your 30s. You (and me) are in a shitty demographic so the algorithm peddles us shit. It doesn’t matter how many times I list shitheel vids by the ppl you me mentioned as “do not recommend channel”, I will always have Rogan or Peterson popping up in my feed to ruin my day. It drives me crazy
It can’t just be that though, I’m a guy in my 30s and I never get any of these channels recommended to me, just videos by channels I’ve subscribed to or similar to what I’ve been watching, even after watching political videos I don’t get those shysters recommended to me.
Agreed, I’m in the demographic as well and mostly get science education and cooking videos recommended to me. I’ll get the occasional political video but they are definitely more left wing channels.
YouTube algorithm only cares about engagement not likes or dislikes. It has a neutral impression of likes and dislikes and only cares if people are actively leaving impressions. Whether it’s from liking with joy or disliking with anger engagement is a sign to show more. I’ve heard contrary to logic it’s better to just skip immediately and not press anything signifying reception to the content shown, since it’ll perceive it as recommendation to show more.
Yeah I can understand that for likes/dislikes or comments of “this is dumb”, but after hundreds of “do not recommend this channel”, the algorithm should be able to tell a lack of interest in a particular content.
I barely posted on Reddit due to the thought of people hating what I said or posted 😊 I think here is more friendly since it’s not huge, I share what I like and if people don’t agree that’s cool! As long as it makes someone happy it’s worth it ✨
I believe there are a few Lemmy instances that don’t have downvotes enabled. (Beehaw might be one of them, but don’t quote me on that.) If downvotes are a stress point for you, you could try joining one of those instances.
I personally find both upvotes and downvotes to be useful as a way for me to quickly see the community’s reaction to a piece of content. If I’m scrolling through my feed and see a post with many downvotes and few upvotes, for example, I know that post is unlikely to interest me and will move on. Conversely, a highly upvoted post or one with a mix of both upvotes and downvotes is more likely to have a good conversation in the comments in my experience.
If I make a post that receives a large number of downvotes - or if most of my posts tend to be downvoted - that’s a signal to me that I’m either not communicating my message well (confusing, passive aggressive, etc.) or that my message itself may not be welcome (hate speech, misinformation, etc.). In either case, I use that as a mental trigger for me to reflect on my posts rather than a reason to become unhappy with the community/platform as a whole.
I would also add that getting a post mass downvoted can be a sign that a community might not be a good fit for you.
Like, using reddit as an example, if you see someone spreading anti-lgbt hate and getting upvoted, but when you try to be like “Hey that’s not cool” or explain why they’re wrong you get massively downvoted, it can be a really good sign that maybe it’s not a great place.
I agree, and I would extend this thought to also include situations where it’s simply the wrong audience for your post. The content itself may not have anything wrong with it, but if you post a casual joke or comment without much depth in a community that’s built on deep conversations and well thought out replies, for example, you’re likely to be downvoted simply because the context wasn’t appropriate.
I think that the current downvote system is far from ideal, and ideally there should have some piece of “forced” feedback when you downvote someone, but keep in mind that a downvote is just “this should be less visible”. For example, people often downvote OK answers because an even better answer popped up, and they want the later to rise to the top. So a lot of times there’s no actual hostility in the downvotes.
And for other Reddit behaviours that people often call toxic (I call them SNOO - stupid, noisy, obnoxious, obtuse), I think that it’s cultural. The Reddit admins bred that behaviour into the users; and users are likely to carry it with them elsewhere, including Lemmy. I think that most of those individuals will get better over time here, and the ones who don’t will end leaving.
I feel like the issue with forced feedback when you downvote is you’ll get a lot of comments where its just 1-2 words, doesn’t say much, just a “No” or “Bad”. And if you require a min characters like the bneg forums you’ll just get “No. 10chars”
Requiring comments will cause people to half ass it at best, I think. Which, sure then people can downvote them, but are people going to write a well thought out comment for every “No”?
Is having 40 “I disagree” comments really better for discussion than just 40 downvotes?
By “forced feedback” I was thinking more like having multiple types of downvote (“off-topic”, “rude”, “incorrect”, “I disagree”, “unfunny”…), so users need to pick one when downvoting something. It gives people a better clue on why a certain piece of content is being downvoted than just letting them assume, and it’s way less noise than 40 “I disagree” comments.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.