this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
452 points (97.3% liked)
Fediverse memes
3360 readers
11 users here now
Memes about the Fediverse.
Rules
General
- Be respectful
- Post on topic
- No bigotry or hate speech
- Memes should not be personal attacks towards other users
- We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
- This is not the place to start flamewars between Lemmy, Mbin and Piefed.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse
Other relevant communities:
- !fediverse@lemmy.world
- !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !lemmydrama@lemmy.world
- !fediverselore@lemmy.ca
- !bestofthefediverse@lemmy.ca
- !fedigrow@lemmy.zip
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is a new rule metering the number of votes that can be cast by a user. You can see yours on your profile.
That's.... really weird.
On the surface the reasoning behind it makes sense, but there is also something about it (that I can't quite point out yet) that rubs me the wrong way.
It doesn't make sense though. It was presented as this unequal distribution thing where a few users cast the most amount of votes, but that really doesn't matter because each user still only gets one vote per post or comment. No one's opinion is outsized or disproportionate just because they vote on a lot of things.
It was really bad statistics from the start. It was framed sorta like wealth disparity, using the same kind of chart, but it's categorically not the same thing.
That sounds like the PieFed admins are just going to make it worse. Now there's going to be first user advantage, with the first comments on a thread getting preferrential treatment
I don't see how. Unless you mean people rationing their votes are less likely to scroll as far down?
But yeah this place is going to be desolate without pugjesus, and I wonder how many more people are gonna leave once users rationing votes results in content receiving less engagement.
Overall, just a terrible decision in my opinion
Based on the stats shown in Rimu's post, the monthly average vote count of the top 5000 of prolific voters was 1142, and among the top 147 prolific voters, their average monthly was 6868.
With a 240 daily limit, that comes out to 7200 votes per month, which is already above the average of the most prolific voters.
Those 147 top voters may be effected if they only voted sporadically throughout the month (so they vote like, 500 one day and 700 another, but with some rest days of no voting in-between), and those posting above that average who definitely would be effected appear to only total about 60 people.
So for 99% of the userbase, they would not need to consider rationing votes at all.
Ok, so in the announcement post they talk about mostly technical reasons for this. But from the linked post it does in fact sound like the aim is to throttle most active members because they have too much influence?
This is what rubbed me the wrong way and I just couldn't figure out why. We all have one upvote to give, some people just give it way more of them - so in comes the great equalizer in the form of the daily quota.
I hope you pardon my exagerated metaphor, but this is like limiting free speech for journalists, because they excercise the right of free speech way more than others.
It's "just" votes so I'm hesitant to call this censorship but... this does feel like a first step. Will there be daily post quotas too because some people post more than others?
where does the policy change actually impact the user then? I guess at maximum we can't upvote more that 240 things a day (comment or post). I think that's more than the vast majority of users do per day, right?
The point isn't about how many users are likely to hit the daily limit, the point is how having a daily limit might cause people to start rationing their votes. Instead of doling them out however they see fit, they might start thinking "hmm, but is this worth spending a vote on?"
Overall, that can have a chilling effect on voting in general, lowering engagement and reducing the motivation to post (if you only get a handful of upvotes on each post, it might feel "dead" and seem to have no point. It's encouraging to see several dozen users like your post). And that can expand to a chilling effect on posting.
Also, if someone has a disability or is recovering from illness or surgery then they're more likely to spend more time on here, meaning they're more likely to reach the vote quota. This disproportionally impacts them.
Sure, 240 a day is high, but it's not unreasonable for a human to reach, and it's nowhere near "obvious bot" territory.
Based on the charts rimu shared, there are so few users who actually reach "obvious bot" territory that it's impossible for them to not highlight themselves, and they should be easy enough to handle on a case-by-case basis. We're talking less than 10 accounts. Admins can look at each one to examine their activity, and if they're a bot they can remove the account.
There's no reason to limit people's votes.
i guess it's an anti-botting measure where they can't distinguish a power user from an automated system?
There are so few accounts that have that much activity on them that admins could easily handle them on a case-by-case basis.
This doesn't get rid of the bot accounts, it only limits their voting activity like everyone elses, which will make them harder to detect.
It will make it easier for a bot farm to outvote the humans.
Yeah, I can't seem to see what it accomplishes except to make the few users that reach it kinda mad. It seems like an experiment at best to see what kind of effect it will have on hot/all.
Wait, like total votes ever? Like you hit it and you can never vote again?? 😭
No, just over a set period of time.
Ohhh, that's way more tolerable! Thanks for letting me know, got worried there lol.
I think it was YouTube back in the day that used to have a max number of total likes per account? After which, it would appear as if liking worked from your end, but it didn't actually do anything on the backend. I was afraid we had one of those situations.
youtube still has a limit on upvotes, i am pretty sure it's 5000. once you have 5k they remove your oldest ones.
Oof, I hate it...
This is correct at the moment. One can check by going to your their Liked Videos playlist.
I don't get why the feature is necessary. Rimu should make it optional and not on by default.
It is optional in that each piefed instance can choose to turn it off, but its not per user.
WHAT?!*
Mate, who the hell cares about minor shizzle like that. Are you serious...?
The combination of the irritation (being unable to upvote replies to your own material being particularly grating) and what it suggests about the future of the instance.
I actually planned on continuing to post as-usual (upvoting with alts, annoying as that would be) after I discovered it, but when the reasoning came out I knew it was the canary in the coal mine.
But... it was about a cap for those who chronically abused such..?
Man, I literally hit the cap before it was even announced. I went to the Matrix channel, confused as hell, and got told it was intentional.
The cap is 240 votes. I almost hit the cap just upvoting most of the comments here yesterday. If I participated in any real discussions outside of my own comms, I would almost certainly hit the daily cap on that given day.
The issue was not abuse, and Rimu didn't say it was abuse in that sense. The issue was always that Rimu doesn't think that a small minority should be more active in participating on here than the majority.
So it was a massive outrage, not worthy of the dev's time to at least offer an explanation, and yet one more example of the right-wing dev / runner-path. Really?
All this on their own time, with hundreds of their free hours known and logged..?
What?
At no point did I say that Rimu was right-wing in any sense or say that he shouldn't have offered an explanation?
This is a shitty administration decision, it will have shitty effects on the instance long-term, and, especially, it affects me, personally, in a shitty way that I'm not willing to put up with. That's it.