Saidit, what if we showed who voted on everything?

submitted by magnora7 from (self.AskSaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]OldManCorley 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's because the proper response is to ignore it.

That's a unfriendly way to look at user feedback. I'm talking about you ignoring my request for a standard on how to treat unwanted material.

Unless you're saying my feedbacks are unwanted material or course.

Why do you care what someone thinks about how you vote with a username that's anonymous?

I found out who an mod on reddit was by following his username. He thought he'd separated his online account and everything but forgot he'd used his username at a forum elsewhere.

From that forum I was able to piece together who his real life friend was, and from his Facebook it wasn't hard to find the name of said mod. Within minutes I knew where he worked, where he lived, what the name of his spouse and kid were and when Facebook started suggesting the kids kindergarten I felt the excersize had run its course.

By showing to everyone who's voting for who you open up the system for profiling and networking connections. There are some benefits to the users, but I argue the risk far outweighs the reward.

I care because I know there are many groups that want to silence or harm me and others because of who we support and our worldview. Or maybe more correct would be that there's always someone who wants to silence anyone...

If they want to skewer you, they'll just go through your comments like they do on reddit.

Yes. That's one way of breaking down a discussing to the bottom level of the debate pyramid. I don't think it's wise with one more.

By removing the ability to see what we support, they have to debate our statements instead of reacting to what topics we want to cheer on by upvoting, and their personal beliefs on why we upvoted.

Having the usernames out lets us easily see networks of usernames who only upvote each other and don't participate in the larger community, aka users that are likely astroturfing

Unless you give us users a way to deal with this, I don't see what good it does. No downvote? We have to compete with uovotes. Not enough post I actually want to upvote but there's actual racist and discriminatory post on the frontpage?

Upvote the most popular ones.

This is a straight lane to a solidified saidit culture based on a common hate for spam rather than a shared love of the posted topic.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Are you a man OldMan or a coward Corley?

Stand up for your convictions.

Your comments say volumes more than your votes do.

Sure, they are watching and we don't have to make it easy for them - as they already have it all, alegedly.

But we don't have to make it easy for "them" either.

Be bold, be brave, suck it up and vote in the open - under your alias.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We want to avoid the upvote/downvote wars that destroyed reddit. That's why ignoring bad content is our preferred route of action.

I care because I know there are many groups that want to silence or harm me and others because of who we support and our worldview.

Then why on Earth would you want a downvote?

On the second point, if users can recognize shill networks, they'd be less likely to vote positively on them.