rglullis

mods and admins only give lip service to dealing with bots

"You get what you pay for.", evidence #103.

What makes you think that captchas are effective against spammers signing up to the service?

You don’t need 5 posts a day for a community to survive here

"Surving" != "Thriving".

A couple of years ago, I noticed that the front page of HackerNews was consistently getting links from Mastodon posts. That was interesting because it showed that at least one significant part of the tech conversation had moved away from Twitter and into the Fediverse.

No such thing has happened for Lemmy. There is no particular community which is thriving. There is no example of subreddit community that had successfully boycotted Reddit and transplanted here. We have the usual handful of posters, each one trying to maintain their communities "alive", but that is far from its true potential.

What's stopping spammers/scammers/bots to do the same thing?

I've noticed you tend to always assume the worst before even trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

There are very legitimate reasons to not want to give your email to any random website that asks. They can be hacked, the instance might be a front for some data aggregator, etc. And if your response is "just use a masking service" or "just use a disposable email address", then what is the point of validating the email address in the first place?

Admins add email verification because this is one extra layer of protection against automated bots, but this is far from a guarantee they are protected. It might help them to give some paper trail in case someone does something nasty on their servers, but the best they can do is take an (easy to create) email address and report to the authorities along with the IP address.

Compare with an instance that only accepts paying members:

• no bot or spammer will be interested in paying a few dollars per month to send messages
• if some spammer is stupid enough to sign up to the service and sends clear spam, then we point the ToS to them, kick them out and they will be left without any money
• we have a much stronger paper trail (credit card payments, bank transfers) in case some user does something nasty.

https://communick.news/ fits all you requirements regarding users - only paying members can join, so the instance is pretty much guaranteed to be protected from spammers and bots.

Regarding your communities: I really rather keep a strict separation between "instances for communities" and "instances for groups". The topic-specific instances I am running are meant for specific niches, but perhaps I can find one domain that can be used for more "generic" subjects. Would you be interested in that?

Yeah, I also noticed a couple of times where kids passed me by on a bike with the alarm beeping.

I did the demo for CareerCupid and the AP toolkit. AMA.

The problem then is that by responding, you’re engaging with it which typically helps it spread in the algorithms*

But then the solution is to fix "the algorithms". One more reason that I should say we should get rid of "votes" is that they are an artificial constraint created by the closed social media platforms that gate-keep and limit user choice. If "the alogorithms" are plentiful, easy to customize, and chosen by the user, then everyone is able to rank and sort the data as they see fit.

Removing downvotes and banning users who disagree is the typical cult strategy

The only ones with power to remove contents are moderators and admins. If moderation is transparent (as it should be), then it is easy to figure out if mods are are acting in good faith and according to the interests with the community. Then it is up to us as users to figure out if we should continue participating in that community or leave it behiind.

you can’t downvote just wrong information anymore.

If "wrong information" can be properly defined, then either you challenge it (by responding, calling it out) or by reporting it. Downvoting it just because it you think it is not appropriate is a recipe for creating echo chambers.

Do you think vote sould be private ? Public ? And why ?

Making them private is absolute idiotic. People participating in a discussion forum are willing to engage in a public conversation, if you are not willing to respond in public, then don't respond at all. And if you think that the original comment is in bad faith or harmful to the community, report it and move on.

Are you sastified with the current voting system ? And why ?

"Votes" are not real votes. It's just a terrible misnomer for "Liking" and "Disliking". I think we should get rid of votes altogether and use the real vocabulary.

I'd also would like a system where users could define their own scoring algorithm, and I would like to assign different weights depending on the person and the topic/community. I for one think that downvotes (dislikes) should only be counted if you are a member of the community and if you have made a positive contribution to the discussion.

What way do you imagine to highlight content and improve search, discoverability ?

I'd like to be able to follow people just to see what they are liking/commenting on. Also, given that this is a discussion forum, I wonder whether we could build a wiki-like system where people could annotate parts of a comment/post and challenge/elaborate/investigate specific parts of an statement. This could be used either for a "Change My View" style of discussion or even full-on adversarial collaboration projects.