this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2021
38 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44847 readers
929 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Supposing that banning should even be a thing, why would voting be the one action you can take that you shouldn't get banned for? If you comment in certain ways, you can be banned. If you post certain stories, you can be banned. You can be banned for trying to poke around in non-page urls (hacking), you can be banned for all sorts of stuff.
But if you go around downvoting stories that are relevant to that community, that should be protected? If you go around downvoting comments that are in line with that community, that should be protected?
Given that the only things anyone should probably downvote (spam, blatant abuse) are the very things mods exist to take care of, it's not even clear that voting should be a thing at all.
Cheers for fighting downvote bots ... ... but, but, but : typos !
a yswr ==>> a user
You van pay ==>> You can pay
only votes ==>> only (?true?) votes
What prevents someone from subscribing to a community whose topic/purpose they despise, merely so they can downvote everything in it? That is not a constructive use of voting, and many do that without resorting to bots (so successful anti-bot initiatives won't do anything about it).
Voting doesn't actually do anything that any sensible community should want.
They sell votes, explicitly now. You can pay to have ads appear on the front page, and those look like most any other post.
Furthermore, for select clients, they sell these same but not marked as ads.
Not disagreeing. Just pointing out.
I don't know enough about the relevant law to understand whether there are any reporting requirements or not, but if there are they're just skirting those.
I have no proof I can offer, but I am convinced that this is so.
"Valid votes" which only confirm your opinion? How do you know they are bots?