this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
-88 points (9.3% liked)

Fediverse

41819 readers
303 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

PPPS: Here is a totally clarified title: An option to automatically block downvoters with configurable granularity for the scope of the block. See text for detail.

PS: By definition this was always going to attract downvotes, so I'll pay no attention to that. I just want to be clear about one thing: this proposed feature would (obviously) be read-only and opt-in. It is just a development of the existing block feature. It would affect nobody except those who choose to use it.

PPS: I was originally going to submit it to Lemmy issue tracker but I prefer not to use Microsoft Github so for now I'm putting it here instead.

This is a general proposal that concerns Lemmy specifically, but also other forum-alike software that uses ActivityPub, such as Piefed.

For me, the original sin of social media is downvoting (rant incoming). Specifically, its rampant misuse as a "Me no like!!" button. Apart from conveying totally uninteresting information (i.e. a subjective binary opinion), downvoting encourages schoolyard social dynamics and discourages heterodox views (and therefore debate). The nearest in-person equivalent (saying "shut up") is universally considered rude. At scale, the effect of downvoting is to brutalize a community that might otherwise be pleasant and welcoming. I believe this practice is almost always toxic and poisonous. Those who defend it (in good faith, I do not doubt) need to consider the possibility that it has helped to homogenize their communities into people like them (to caricature: insensitive males). Most ordinary people do not participate actively in social media. There's a reason for that.

No, this is not a popular position here (cf. selection bias) and so it will of course be... downvoted. But it's how I see it. I like to think that I've added some value to the fediverse with my contributions, but if there's one thing that regularly causes me to consider leaving, it's this. Going to Beehiv or Blahaj-whatsit is not a solution, because the communities I'm interested in are not there. Hiding downvote scores does not work because... it does not hide the downvoters.

Which gave me an idea. Given that the identity of downvoters is technically public, I propose a new setting: "Auto-block downvoters". That's it. Automatically hide comments (or posts, or anything) by users who have downvoted your contributions. Logical, no? They don't care for what I have to say, and I don't care for their inane negativity. It's win-win! Lots of possible variants:

  • Hide [ subsequent | all ] comments by users who have downvoted [ a post | a comment | anything ] by you [ in this thread | on this post | in this community | everywhere]
  • Hide [etc] by users with an upvote-downvote ratio lower than [ X ]% etc

Such a setting (especially #1) would immeasurably improve my experience of Lemmy. No exaggeration. I like to think it might also serve as a subtle incentive for users to be more generous and tolerant in their behavior towards others, but that is secondary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

There's a difference between manually blocking specific users and having a system set up so you will automatically block anyone who ever downvotes any of your posts or comments.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -4 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

ever

I specifically did not ask for this (it was one of the options and the one I personally would never use).

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Even if you wouldn't use that option, having an automated blocking system to that scale is absurd to me

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Might indeed be hard to implement (congratulations for making approximately the 2nd piece of constructive feedback in this whole discussion BTW). The level of granularity would have to be limited. As described, it sounds like a front-end (i.e. Javascript-based) feature. But time-limited auto-blocks are definitely possible in theory. Not exactly what I asked for but I would definitely use it.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

A time-limited manual block is doable and desirable.

I am afraid I simply don't support your automatic block system time limited or not.

[–] MightEnlightenYou@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You seem to have good intentions. But I think that you're disregarding how most people would use such a feature if it was an option and what that would do to an ecosystem

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world -2 points 11 hours ago

How so? In functional terms this exact feature already exists: blocking. Essentially I'm just asking for more controls over it, because it's too brutal (and fastidious) as things stand. Details could be discussed.