Pie-fed users now have a limited number of votes they can give per day. The exact amount is configurable by admins. Default is 240. More details are buried in that thread.
The user I linked to had some post about how absurd this was implemented because its not just “my users can only give X votes per day”. Federated users have their votes capped when viewed from that instance as well.
I don’t think rimu started piefed out of anti tankie sentiment fwiw. He wanted started piefed because he wanted more mod tools and the Lemmy devs were very strict about their architecture.
The mass migration to piefed was absolutely all those “power users” jumping ship at the first chance to virtue signal that they weren’t tankies. Despite the Lemmy devs never baking their ideology into the code base beyond the AGPL.
I think he wanted those mod tools to build an even more solid echo chamber though, to better police the tankies. I could be wrong but his behavior since hasn’t given me any reason to think otherwise
If you look at the entire body of the weird mod tools he’s baked into PieFed. Its clearly more about filtering out what he personally believes is low effort posting instead of just trusting the voting system. IIRC he’s never programmed in anything explicitly anti tankie. Instead, you get negative karma for posting a 4chan screenshot, replying with just a gif, or having the username cm0002.
I don’t doubt that he’s anti tankie but I don’t think that’s his primary personal motivation. It was absolutely the motivating factor for everyone who jumped on the PieFed bandwagon. But we’re just projecting that onto him.
I’ve barely followed the piefed drama, but so much of what I hear is that it’s chock full of “features” to address things the maintainer (and virtually no one else) personally finds annoying.
That’s the most of it. The whole communist/liberal dialog between piefed and Lemmy is background. Piefed. started because rimu wanted to be able to hack in these admin controls easily and found it too hard with lemmy’s rust base.
Punishing your power users probably isn’t good for your webbed site
Having only 10 power users feels decidedly low. Maybe building a Lemmy alternative soley on being “anti-tankie” isn’t actually a huge draw for most people
Rimu continues to show piefed is just a way for them to control people and yet so many continue to say it’s the only option cause lemmy devs are worse 🤔
Like there was absolutely nothing wrong with Lemmy if you weren’t on .ml. The devs kept their politics solidly to their own instance. Jumping ship was a way for liberal power users to virtue signal.
Those posters do way more than than 240. I think rimu did some napkin math so it doesn’t affect +99% of users. But its still just a bad solution. Its like saying the way to stop billionaires is to limit how much one person can spend.
In PJs case its just him upvoting every positive comment he receives. He is sort of like fossilique in just posting normal stuff 99% of the time. Its when he actually gives his opinion that he’s a problem.
Oh sure, but what I’m saying is, for those 10 users, they can’t possibly be doing 60%+ of the activity for all posts. That would mean they would need to be the only ones posting and commenting 60% of the time. It tells me either the organic local activities on the instance are DEAD or there is something wrong with the math. On a thread to thread bases of local post activity they can’t possibly make up 60%+ of the activity.
Right? Like, if what he did was take the total upvotes on the instance for a 24 hour period, then uses ranked by total upvotes cast for a 24 hour period, and then totaled their votes and found what percentage that represents from the whole, its not really representative of the activity on a per community or per thread bases.
Its also strange that this impacts federation too. I mean its very in character but still strange, because the pool of active users only grows when you include remote users, so for these 10 users to make up 60% of the activity, the remote instances would have to be effectively dead, which we know isn’t true.
Let’s assume the site gets 1000 upvote activity a day. That would mean these 10 people represent 600 upvotes a day. But that also implies that there were 600 posts and comments for them to upvote. This could be offset by making their own posts and commets though which always automatically provided 1 vote for themselves. Let’s say there are 1000 users. That would mean rest of the users, all 990 of them only make 400 vote activities a day.
Per user that means the 10 power users create 60 vote activities a day (votes, posts, or comments). That means the other 990 users create 2.47 vote activities a day. That’s 3 posts, 3 comments, 3 votes, or a mix there of a day per user. Considering how easy it is to vote, that seems wildly under what I would assume only casual users would generate. Just scrolling the main page you easily make more then 3 votes.
If this is including federated content that means that the other instances are only every providing 3 voted per user per day in effect. If the power users are a mix of users across instances that means at a per instance level, those 10 users are basically the only high activity users on the network.
I mean, its an interesting puzzle in some respects. However I’d be more worried about the problem that reddit has, where something like 80% of million+ subscriber subreddits were historically moderated by the same group of users, or at least a very narrow group of users. Which, is only an issue if you allow for user created communities instead of administration created communities.
Like what I’m understanding here is that pieces.social doesn’t have “power users” it has low activity? That’s what it seems to me anyway. This obviously is based on only what you know which is just second hand.
This data is really funny. There is so much data not being reported here:
Where are these users from? Local? Remote?
What communities do they vote in?
How much of the votes go to comments vs posts?
How many of the votes are from their own posts and comments? AKA how much do they post and comment?
How many of those votes are cast on front page content vs new content? What is the delta between the time the post/comment was made vs when the vote was cast? Do votes have timestamps?
How does piefed track “active” users? Is this post including only “active” users? Does it track them as active that day, week, month? Is it worth counting people who do not qualify as active that month in the count?
I feel like #5 is important given the framing in the post, “do you think these 147 people should control what you see?”
Because if they don’t vote on “new” content they are not really boosting a post that much.
Its also important to note that they only have 147 votes to cast on each item. So where are they voting? Its also important to know, how many votable items were created that month.
Because you could then identify what the spread is. What is their impact on the total voteable items?
Even with that though. What is the overlap between their interests and the communities interests? If a vote is cast and I’m not subscribed to see it, was a vote even cast at all?
There is so little being done to prove that these 147 people have an outsizes impact on the broader community of content.
What’s also amusing is, this change is pitched in the patch notes as a network stability issue. That implies that the level of votes cast are in some way clogging up the works over at piefed! How could this be? Shouldn’t that be the least impactfull interaction?
A rate limit on voting would solve the network issue, but then its stated in the comments that people would still be able to make “thousands and thousands of votes” even with a rate limit. What is actually the issue here? The rate of votes or the quantity of votes?
I can’t remember of the vote timestamp is exposed via the API or not. But you would think that given the nature of the investigation you would want to know when a vote was cast. Like, adding 147 votes to a post that’s already on the front page means very little.
What is this about pieces.social wanting less engagement on their instance?
Pie-fed users now have a limited number of votes they can give per day. The exact amount is configurable by admins. Default is 240. More details are buried in that thread.
Signpost comment: https://lemmy.world/post/49322105/24720931
Hexbear gold users have unlimited upvotes and a single downvote
Capitalists not create false scarcity challenge (Impossible)
He’s not trying to commodify it though. Its a sort of misguided egalitarianism. Like he’s actually being a capitalist caricature of a communist.
realize I’m being flippant challenge (Easy)
Gay challenge (super easy)
Lol what. That’s ridiculous
The user I linked to had some post about how absurd this was implemented because its not just “my users can only give X votes per day”. Federated users have their votes capped when viewed from that instance as well.
Rimu is going crazy.
Anyone shouting about “tankie authoritarianism” is just projecting. Rimu is one of many examples.
I don’t think rimu started piefed out of anti tankie sentiment fwiw. He wanted started piefed because he wanted more mod tools and the Lemmy devs were very strict about their architecture.
The mass migration to piefed was absolutely all those “power users” jumping ship at the first chance to virtue signal that they weren’t tankies. Despite the Lemmy devs never baking their ideology into the code base beyond the AGPL.
I think he wanted those mod tools to build an even more solid echo chamber though, to better police the tankies. I could be wrong but his behavior since hasn’t given me any reason to think otherwise
If you look at the entire body of the weird mod tools he’s baked into PieFed. Its clearly more about filtering out what he personally believes is low effort posting instead of just trusting the voting system. IIRC he’s never programmed in anything explicitly anti tankie. Instead, you get negative karma for posting a 4chan screenshot, replying with just a gif, or having the username cm0002.
I don’t doubt that he’s anti tankie but I don’t think that’s his primary personal motivation. It was absolutely the motivating factor for everyone who jumped on the PieFed bandwagon. But we’re just projecting that onto him.
Iirc piefed did block “tankie” instances like here and grad by default, which if I am recalling correctly, would be anti-tankie
I’ve barely followed the piefed drama, but so much of what I hear is that it’s chock full of “features” to address things the maintainer (and virtually no one else) personally finds annoying.
That’s the most of it. The whole communist/liberal dialog between piefed and Lemmy is background. Piefed. started because rimu wanted to be able to hack in these admin controls easily and found it too hard with lemmy’s rust base.
… But why?
Something about 10 users accounting for 60% of the upvotes on piefed that rimu objected to.
Punishing your power users probably isn’t good for your webbed site
Having only 10 power users feels decidedly low. Maybe building a Lemmy alternative soley on being “anti-tankie” isn’t actually a huge draw for most people
I think Rimu doesn’t like the idea of power users and I low key respect it when you look at the power users he must deal with.
honestly, this is the only thing that makes it make sense for me. like why else would he even know who gives updoots on his reddit clone?
Rimu continues to show piefed is just a way for them to control people and yet so many continue to say it’s the only option cause lemmy devs are worse 🤔
Like there was absolutely nothing wrong with Lemmy if you weren’t on .ml. The devs kept their politics solidly to their own instance. Jumping ship was a way for liberal power users to virtue signal.
That makes little sense. That’s only 10 up votes per post or comment. That sounds like a very low traffic instance lol.
Those posters do way more than than 240. I think rimu did some napkin math so it doesn’t affect +99% of users. But its still just a bad solution. Its like saying the way to stop billionaires is to limit how much one person can spend.
In PJs case its just him upvoting every positive comment he receives. He is sort of like fossilique in just posting normal stuff 99% of the time. Its when he actually gives his opinion that he’s a problem.
Oh sure, but what I’m saying is, for those 10 users, they can’t possibly be doing 60%+ of the activity for all posts. That would mean they would need to be the only ones posting and commenting 60% of the time. It tells me either the organic local activities on the instance are DEAD or there is something wrong with the math. On a thread to thread bases of local post activity they can’t possibly make up 60%+ of the activity.
Right? Like, if what he did was take the total upvotes on the instance for a 24 hour period, then uses ranked by total upvotes cast for a 24 hour period, and then totaled their votes and found what percentage that represents from the whole, its not really representative of the activity on a per community or per thread bases.
Its also strange that this impacts federation too. I mean its very in character but still strange, because the pool of active users only grows when you include remote users, so for these 10 users to make up 60% of the activity, the remote instances would have to be effectively dead, which we know isn’t true.
Let’s assume the site gets 1000 upvote activity a day. That would mean these 10 people represent 600 upvotes a day. But that also implies that there were 600 posts and comments for them to upvote. This could be offset by making their own posts and commets though which always automatically provided 1 vote for themselves. Let’s say there are 1000 users. That would mean rest of the users, all 990 of them only make 400 vote activities a day.
Per user that means the 10 power users create 60 vote activities a day (votes, posts, or comments). That means the other 990 users create 2.47 vote activities a day. That’s 3 posts, 3 comments, 3 votes, or a mix there of a day per user. Considering how easy it is to vote, that seems wildly under what I would assume only casual users would generate. Just scrolling the main page you easily make more then 3 votes.
If this is including federated content that means that the other instances are only every providing 3 voted per user per day in effect. If the power users are a mix of users across instances that means at a per instance level, those 10 users are basically the only high activity users on the network.
I mean, its an interesting puzzle in some respects. However I’d be more worried about the problem that reddit has, where something like 80% of million+ subscriber subreddits were historically moderated by the same group of users, or at least a very narrow group of users. Which, is only an issue if you allow for user created communities instead of administration created communities.
Like what I’m understanding here is that pieces.social doesn’t have “power users” it has low activity? That’s what it seems to me anyway. This obviously is based on only what you know which is just second hand.
OK I found the post.
This data is really funny. There is so much data not being reported here:
I feel like #5 is important given the framing in the post, “do you think these 147 people should control what you see?”
Because if they don’t vote on “new” content they are not really boosting a post that much.
Its also important to note that they only have 147 votes to cast on each item. So where are they voting? Its also important to know, how many votable items were created that month.
Because you could then identify what the spread is. What is their impact on the total voteable items?
Even with that though. What is the overlap between their interests and the communities interests? If a vote is cast and I’m not subscribed to see it, was a vote even cast at all?
There is so little being done to prove that these 147 people have an outsizes impact on the broader community of content.
What’s also amusing is, this change is pitched in the patch notes as a network stability issue. That implies that the level of votes cast are in some way clogging up the works over at piefed! How could this be? Shouldn’t that be the least impactfull interaction?
A rate limit on voting would solve the network issue, but then its stated in the comments that people would still be able to make “thousands and thousands of votes” even with a rate limit. What is actually the issue here? The rate of votes or the quantity of votes?
Lmao what a nightmare.
Votes have timestamps in my database, though I am running lemmy.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
I can’t remember of the vote timestamp is exposed via the API or not. But you would think that given the nature of the investigation you would want to know when a vote was cast. Like, adding 147 votes to a post that’s already on the front page means very little.
With utmost respect, do not put this much effort into understanding any fediverse drama. Its not healthy.
Don’t yuck my yum, thanks 😇
wow, this is the funniest thing i have read today