effingjoe

I feel like people read a comment that linked XMPP with EEE and keep parroting it while not understanding it.

XMPP still exists, but people largely don't want "Instant Messaging" anymore. They don't want to care about whether the person is online before they can send a message.

Google dropping support for XMPP didn't do that, it's what caused them to drop it. They moved on to what people wanted: asynchronous messaging.

This concern about the now overused "EEE" stuff is blown away out of proportion.

Why do you think it will be unmoderated? Keep in mind I have very little exposure to Instagram and less for Threads itself.

You can't hand wave away the technical limitations like that. If you want downvotes, and you appear to want them, and you want to be on a federated system, and it appears you do, then the federation will require linking downvotes to users.

Downvotes aren't an outwardly anonymous way to show disagreement like they were used on Reddit. They're like a comment of disagreement. If someone harasses you for downvotes, report them. And block them. Just as you would if they did so for a comment you left.

I like that voting is public because it makes voting (up or down) a public statement. If I look at a person's voting history and see upvotes on racist comments and downvotes of well thought out comments I can know with some certainty that I can disregard the opinions of that person. Further, it might make people more thoughtful about what they vote on.

All it takes is one person to spin up one instance.

You never actually showed how it made life easier for trolls and stalkers.

Have you stopped to think about how that works in practice? If I downvote something on kbin (where I am now) and it federates to feddit.nu, how does that work without also knowing my username? As I think I already saw someone point out to you, stripping out that information would make it very easy to send unlimited downvotes to any given instance, because it would just be a counter of downvotes without a user associated with it.

The only reason downvotes were "anonymous" on reddit was because it was closed source and didn't federate that information to other services. The downvote was still linked to your account, just obscured; Reddit admins could certainly see what you downvoted. This tactic won't work on any platform that uses ActivityPub, or something similar, without getting rid of downvotes entirely. It's probably best you get accustomed to this; treat it as you would a comment that says "I think people should see less of this" or something equivalent.

My question was more along the lines of "why do you need to label any given reason as a 'primary' argument". You've already been given counter-points.

I think that if you're concerned about this, you should seek out an instance that both does not federate downvotes and does not display the downvote button. Then you will be unable to downvote, and you won't see any downvotes from other instances.

I don't know by what metric I'd even use to quantify that. Why do you need one?

I don't know that I'd call it the primary argument, just an argument. And containerization makes hosting your own lemmy instance trivial.

Personally, if it makes people a little more judicious about applying a downvote, maybe that's a good thing.

To what end? So it can get converted into a real currency immediately? I understand (since you spammed it everywhere) that you can donate via crypto, but that's only because crypto can be converted into a real currency.

Give it up, my friend; fetch isn't going to happen.

crypto is the beanie babies for this generation. Some people are going to make a lot of money but a vast, vast majority are going to be the proud owners of something worthless that they spent a lot of money on.

I didn't mind the reddit version when there was only one award and it granted the awardee premium benefits for a month. I felt like that was a good balance. Not that I think lemmy needs that kind of system-- at least not yet.

Trolls know why they're being downvoted; for reasons I don't understand, they seem to enjoy it.

You probably shouldn't be downvoting people having a good-faith discussion, but if you do, the venn diagram of people having a good-faith discussion and unstable enough to harass someone for downvoting them is probably pretty small. Small enough for the block function to mitigate it.

Flip it around. Anonymous downvotes would let anyone spin up a lemmy instance, fill it with sockpuppet accounts, and downvote everything by hundreds or thousands of downvotes, and it would be impossible for users to know the difference.