I’ve been seeing more often (and others have posted the same) that some of the elements of “Reddit etiquette” seem to be taking over here. Luckily I can still find discussion comments but it seems the jokes and general “downvote because I disagree” are slowly taking over.

So the question becomes is it the size or the functionality of the site? The people or popularity? What’s your thoughts?

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    We talk about it as a hive mind, but I think it is actually a problem of large numbers of users and an algorithm that needs tweaking, plus some shady mods.

    You post but you’re too late, or you have a legit opinion that needs a few sub comments, but it’s too late.

    Or you get trolled, you respond in a similar vein, and the mod bans you but not them, because the mod likes their opinion more. And I don’t blame mods for being soft in general, because it is a shit job. But sometimes it’s frustrating.

  • averyminya@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    There’s 3 facets.

    1. Being “in” on the joke.

    This is the meme comments, whether they are internet lore (a way to signify that you were there) or simply just in on the joke.

    1. Community expectations.

    Some communities are made to be in on the joke. Some communities are made to be informational and analytic. Even the latter communities will eventually have some jokes that occur, which over time will create a caste of those who are “in” on the joke.

    1. Ethics and morals.

    In smaller, usually hobby communities, this generally isn’t problematic. However in the wider internet, it’s not uncommon for hate to be the joke, and spreading it being “in” on the joke.

    Therefore, the hivemind is not inherently bad, as it is just a nature of community expectations that are connected through shared experiences over time. But just like we’ve seen through history, this can be pretty easily manipulated and people who don’t have humanitarian beliefs in mind perpetuating that rhetoric.

    In any case, to combat this, I think the community just needs to set specific expectations. GameFAQs forums would be a great example of having mostly problem-free hivemind, as video games have a specific meta-game that is developed over time and jokes from that shared experience (git gud, don’t get hit, etc). The whole point of these forums was to talk about the game, from meme (before memes) to painstaking min-maxing, and the discussions of the community would revolve around this. The rules of the forums made it pretty hard to be overtly mean or engage in discussion that wasn’t centered around the goal of the community.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    I think the difference is when you have a small group everyone sort of considers themselves co-custodians of a space—lifting each other up and helping people integrate. But get enough people and it starts getting exhausting constantly trying to enforce norms against an ever growing community of people who don’t understand or respect them. It’s like social enshittification.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I don’t recall when I first started using the internet. Late 80’s or very early 90’s. No WWW back then. It was all IRC and gopher and newsgroups and other things I don’t remember. I lived near MSU, so I could dial in for free because it was a local call.

        And then once you got in, it was hard to find anything to actually do. It kinda felt like exploring Mars. But eventually I found things. Very exclusive club and very good times that I miss. No advertisements. No one trying to make a sale.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          It kinda felt like exploring Mars. But eventually I found things

          Even the world wide web felt like that until shockingly recently. I remember circa 2005 just typing in random words .com and seeing what you’d find, or discovering a cool new website by word of mouth at school.

          I remember vising pig.com and discovering a delightful page consisting of nothing more than a giant picture of a pig and the text “this domain is for sale” that lasted years. These days it’s probably one of those shitty for sale landing pages.

    • MelonYellow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Too much growth too fast for sure! Much harder for Lemmy to create its own culture and maintain it. Much harder to discourage toxicity. Notice how healthy communities are often smaller.

      Sucks for niche communities but they’ll get slowly spun up over time, and in the meantime they can be found in other places including Reddit. I don’t personally need everything to be a one-stop shop.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I think we need to consider the norms Lemmites enforce. From what I’ve experienced: it’s often nitpicks (“I think one thing you said is wrong”), or mild insults when an opinion is outside our slightly-left-of-centre POV. Disagreement is rarely friendly, gentle, or constructive.

      From what I’ve seen, we’re great at getting the big stuff right - people react quickly against child porn or overt racism/insults. But we reply with the same anger if someone has an opinion different from ours.

      I have a better time in small Reddit communities because people have more shared interests. Here our prime commonality is that we like FOSS and dislike Reddit.

      • Hawke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        But we reply with the same anger if someone has an opinion different from ours.

        Hey fuck you! That’s total bullshit and you know it!!

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        it’s often nitpicks (“I think one thing you said is wrong”)

        I think this happens. I know I’ve done it but I’ve expressly stated my agreement with everything else but hey this one thing needs examination. I think sometimes people leave that part unsaid and maybe they forgot or maybe they just don’t have good arguments against.

        Note I’m not mentioning anything else. It’s because I largely agree with what you’ve said or don’t think a counterpoint would be helpful.

        • sbv@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          At this point I start with a big “I agree” and state something about it, so we have some common ground. Then, if I have further questions/disagreement then I mention it.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    We’ve absolutely got hive minds here - it requires extremely good and dedicated moderators to keep in check but one thing that might help is adopting my favorite hackernews rule… you are prohibited from downvoting any comments that are direct replies to your comment. That single block works pretty effectively to untrain the habit of “downvote what I disagree with”.

    • ganymede@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      probably an unpopular view but tbh i think voting has ruined modern forums

      firstly its much much easier to game, and for big platforms to fake

      but more to the point, voting makes excellent sense when the topic is something with a clearly provable right/wrong answer. eg. technical questions are ideal for voting, where the wrong information does belong at the bottom because its simply wrong and in most cases most people can easily verify if it works or doesn’t work.

      instead we get voting for everything now, so it merely becomes a poll of opinions not facts, but unfortunately our monkey brains sees the numbers and somewhat equates emotions with facts.

      oldschool forums ALREADY HAD a poll feature, so when we wanted a poll we could get one. now everything is a poll, and when everything is a poll nothing is especially meaningful.

      • Cataphract@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I feel so stupid lol. I’m on a bunch of random forums still that I’ve been visiting since the early 2000’s and trying to figure out why things go so bad socially (grouping/instance hating/etc) on platforms like this so quick. There’s no voting on any of them, it’s such a baked-in thing here and on reddit and so foreign on forums that I just didn’t consider it for some reason. There’s definitely dissent or butting heads but it usually just fizzles out and doesn’t carry onto other posts (unless two users really hate each other, always happens unfortunately).

        • ganymede@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          aye exactly. i’d rather see it gone tbh, but since voting is apparently here, and if we try to work within it, such as mentioned above where hackernews prevents downvoting replies to you.

          some other ideas

          • permit upvoting but downvotes require a textbox reply (imo downvoting without a valid reason is just noise, and we want signal over noise right?)

          • self posts not being upvoted (all posts start at 0)

          • no voting until you ‘earn your stripes’. not perfect, but somewhat helps at keeping voting within domain expertise.

          eg. i ‘fucking love science’, but just because an answer feels nice to me on nuclear rocket surgery doesn’t mean my vote should count.

    • Lemmeenym@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      We also have a problem on lemmy that there is a subset of users who think that votes are how you curate your feed. They downvote anything that they don’t want to see instead of blocking communities that they aren’t interested in.

      • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        Consequence of lack of onboarding. Would be easily fixed by popping up instructions for voting and feed shaping the first time a new user votes.

        Quora may be exacerbating the behaviour by automatically blocking topics when you downvote questions. They also downvote a question for you when you only want to report it for something. The downvote remains after the reported issue has been corrected.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    It’s friendliness of the community and willingness to treat randos with respect. Responses here seem to fit a general pattern of “I agree and…”, or “you’re wrong and stupid”.

    I generally have a better experience on Reddit. I’m less likely to get responses, but I get fewer downvotes there and the responses are usually nicer.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      There’s a number of instances that don’t have downvotes. Notably, it forces each person who takes issue with something you’ve said to respond to you if nobody else has said it. Whether that’s better is up to you.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          I’ve no strong feelings on the matter, but I can understand how some would feel 10 people telling you exactly how you’re wrong can feel worse than 10 downvotes.

          I avoid this by simply being correct all the time.

  • saddlebag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Gamifying the voting incentivises people to make low quality posts and comments. That’s why Reddit is now basically just rage bait fake stories with comment chains that all look exactly the same. And now it’s all just ai generated anyway.

    I sometimes visit and read the AITAH type stories and I’m dumbfounded that people can believe or enjoy reading them. All the subtleties and nuances of the early days are gone and it’s a race to who can karma farm the hardest.

    The other thing that made Reddit great in early days were the small communities being visible on the front page. It made the content varied and there were different types of posting hitting front page. I think Lemmy is struggling with this because politics is just so loud that we don’t have enough volume of other content being made.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Indeed. When’s the last time we saw a well-thought-out, controversial opinion on Reddit?The system breeds behaviors that are in conflict with a high-quality, diverse discussion.

      It is for the same reason that I’m very particular about my downvotes. They are reserved for low-quality content, not that which I personally disagree with. I’d like if we could all learn to be less judgmental and more constructive so that we may all learn something meaningful. I think this is incompatible with the way that Reddit operates.

      • mrnarwall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        As someone who recently switch to Lemmy, I did notice that there is a general difference in the tone of conversation. This is the first time I’ve seen it put to words

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        my downvotes. They are reserved for low-quality content, not that which I personally disagree with.

        There was more of that in the early days of Reddit. At some point everyone abandoned that principle, and from them on every thread became more of a battle than a conversation.

      • dhhyfddehhfyy4673@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I wonder if separating relevant/irrelevant & like/dislike into two votes would have any success. Quite likely it would not, but might be worth trying.

        • Ardyssian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          Would probably rename [ like / dislike ] to [ agree / disagree ] to avoid overlapping with [ relevant / irrelevant ]. To make it more robust, make voting for relevancy compulsory if voting for [ agree / disagree ].

          But the reported stats is all moot if there’s bot manipulation anyway. Also, people would most likely say it’s relevant even if it’s actually not, just because they agree with it

    • Blaze (he/him)@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I think Lemmy is struggling with this because politics is just so loud that we don’t have enough volume of other content being made.

      I regularly suggest people to block those communities, or consider an alt to follow those

    • Lemmeenym@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Using scaled sorting really helps with getting smaller communities on the front page. I still see the political and news communities but I also see communities for cities and niche hobbies.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I remember when Reddit’s best “reading” threads just suddenly shifted. AITA, JustNoMIL, TalesFromTechSupport, TalesFromRetail, all of a sudden they went from realistic stories of real people venting to… just obvious rage bait. It was so disappointing. It was one of the best things to read on the bus, here’s someone going through something, can offer support, laugh about it, whatever.

      It went from stories like “I had someone demand a manager when I wouldn’t offer them 40% off” to “someone pulled a gun on me at work, and my manager told me I should have punched them”. Just such horrible bullshit. That’s when I knew the site was going downhill.

  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    IMO: tribal thinking.

    It comes down to “they do not think like I want them to or they won’t agree with me, so I will downvote posts.”

    Controversial topics are even more downvoting just to downvote.

    The self-built echo chambers are already constructed; self-censorship and anything outside of their views and sources are dismissed, labeled, and smeared so as to not think about the information being shared.

    It happens everywhere; the status quo is welcomed, while anything outside of it will seem controversial or extreme.

  • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    It may be impossible to prevent such community-wide erosion especially on an individual basis, but I think the best one can do to at least not contribute to that erosion is maintaining a sense of vigilance about the foundational idea at the heart of Reddit’s site-wide rot: “I am smarter than the out-group, and anything I do within the in-group to increase my score affirms that I am endlessly clever and funny.”

  • imaginepayingforred@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Literally nothing can be done to avoid it. The “Reddit hivemind” is the human hivemind. When enough people start contributing to a certain community, certain ideas usually unanimously shared between individuals get boosted up to the top and become general consensus.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      The “Reddit hivemind” is the human hivemind.

      Reddit doesn’t represent the entirety of humanity. It represents a specifically self-selecting group of people that tend to come from a combination of converging material conditions that give then access and means to the site that then opt into that particular group’s increasingly-ossified norms and are provided superficial but effective incentives to continue doing so by the site’s owners.

      Social groups can and do change over time, and some are better or worse off in varying ways, and they are not all “Reddit hiveminds” unless you are lazily equivocating all human social structures as “hiveminds.” What else is there? Some fantasy of rugged Randian individualism?

      To say otherwise is useless fatalism, or at the least, false equivocation.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I think you missed their point. Yes, the specific beliefs held by the Reddit hivemind are specific to that platform. But the idea that Reddit has a hivemind is a natural human factor. So Reddit’s hivemind might be a centre-left liberal hivemind, HN’s might be more libertarian, and Lemmy’s is more leftist. But there’s some degree of hivemind on any platform that exposes users too each others’ content and where participating in those public discussions is the point.

        A site like YouTube or Facebook lacks as much of a hivemind effect, because people aren’t on there for the discussion. They’re on YT for the videos, or on FB largely for their friends. Though both YT and FB comment sections are also proof that lacking a hivemind is also not a sign of quality.

    • bazingabrain [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      certain ideas usually unanimously shared between individuals get boosted up to the top and become general consensus.

      Weird how those ideas of yours usually correspond with something western politicians and think thanks spout on the daily.

      Weird how non western ideas that somehow survive deletion are usually downvoted to oblivion or flagged and hidden.

      Weird how Reddit hired a literal CIA agent to manage their content even though said person had zero experience working that role.

      Weird weird weird back-to-me

  • Frozyre@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    It has to be down to the moderation. Admins and Moderators have to step up and stamp out what they feel is infecting the community.

    Too many times I’ve seen in history where, if you do not have an active mod team and allow people to run the asylum, you effectively have failed that community.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Lol… Mods enforce the hivemind.

      Any critical analysis or questioning of the mods narrative leads to comment removal and bans.

  • Zoift [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Remove downvotes. Unironically, its a good idea. Requires people to actually engage with something if they disagree rather than just downvote and move on. Gets people talking & raises user engagement. Will be an uptick in shitflinging for a short while till all the assholes out themselves, get banned, and site culture improves from that alone.

    • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      One of my several Reddit accounts followed that principle: only upvotes allowed, no downvotes. Then, when I said that in a comment someone discussed with me how stupid they thought that practice was. They believe it was completely undesirable for Reddit, citing what happened in YouTube after they removed the downvote option. I didn’t care to understand, but that experience allowed me to develop a perennial restraint for hitting the downvote button. I use it scarcely against what I’m convinced are trolls.

    • gomp@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      What is that you care to preserve? Can’t you just register a new account and kill the old one? (genuinely curious)

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Many users have stated they would like to keep their comment history and subscriptions. Move their account to a different instance. Having to start from scratch is a big hassle.

        The fediverse concept is great but users are locked into the instance they create their accounts on. With so many instances it is better to just start somewhere and figure out what’s what later.

        So far I am happy with my instance. But if I ever change my mind it would help if migration was simple.

  • Alice@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Unfortunately I think people downvoting things they disagree with is kind of inevitable. People are notoriously combative online, and if they’re given an option to drown someone out, they’re going to abuse it. And that makes it even easier for any sort of hivemind to kick in.

    I personally don’t know a better system, but it’s not perfect.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Reddit is notorious for astroturfing. The lemmy hivemind(s) is the lemmitor hivemind from people socialized on Reddit who came to lemmy and brought that shit with them. Same with other instances like .world, but worse because they have fewer legacy users.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Reddit is notorious for astroturfing

      The worst is when a business are the moderators of the subreddit about their business. This used to be against the rules, I’m pretty sure, but was never enforced and I think at some point they silently dropped that rule. It creates a gross conflict of interest.