I treat social media as pure discussion platform to advance understanding or to know new stuff.

There had been something on my mind lately which I wanted to discuss as a way to improve the upvotes relevance to the quality of the post and the amount of discussion.

Let’s apply quality control on upvotes, so any post can get only 20 upvotes till it gets a specific amount of comments then the limit could be pumped up to 40 upvotes till it gets more comments, etc…

Why I am bringing this up, you might ask? The linked post by me is the peek proof of my point.

It’s pretty clear no one read the linked article and despite that, the post is the top post in the technology community. There is no comments discussing directly the story and from the face of it, There does not seem to be any indicator that any one benefited from this.

I skimmed over the story and shared it in the hopes to basically learn new stuff, get relevant recommendations or basically read some direct discussions.

In any way, I think my described system to handle upvotes would highly improve Lemmy, taking into consideration that numbers used are only for demonstration and the used numbers will need to be figured out separately.

Should this system be implemented into Lemmy?

  • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldEnglish
    73·
    1 day ago

    It’s pretty clear no one read the linked article

    This is the root problem. Upvoting and downvoting headlines on the basis of vibes. It adds zero value. It’s a waste of everyone’s time, not least the upvoters and (especially) downvoters themselves, who get nothing out of it but the tiniest of vacuous dopamine hits. It’s the original sin of social media.

    My preferred solutions:

    • no voting at all without a registered click on the linked article
    • no commenting at all without including a verifiable quote from the linked article

    Deep-seated problems call for radical solutions. Both of these are technically feasible.

    • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
      7·
      1 day ago
      • no commenting at all without including a verifiable quote from the linked article

      How is this feasible?

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        1 day ago

        On posting, crawl the link and cache its content. Compare with quote on the basis of some generous threshold of similarity.

        • Pro@suppo.fiEnglish
          8·
          1 day ago

          My dude, my main account server got down while I am posting and commenting and you want them to even invest more in crawlers.

          Think simpler, the fediverse is suffering from lack of resources.

        • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
          5·
          1 day ago

          If viable either financially or logistically, this is just overly excessive and pushes people away from the Fediverse.

          • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            1 day ago

            Sure. But social media is becoming a nightmare. It’s literally destroying democracy. As things stand, I’m not even convinced the fediversal version is an improvement. And if it’s not, then personally I don’t care how many people are pushed away. In as far as technical fixes are possible to the myriad problems of social media, I believe these might be a couple of them. That’s all I’m saying.

            • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
              3·
              1 day ago

              Pushing people aware from the Fediverse over crippling posting standards does nothing whatsoever for the wider negative impacts of social media.