The best part of the fediverse is that anyone can run their own server. The downside of this is that anyone can easily create hordes of fake accounts, as I will now demonstrate.

Fighting fake accounts is hard and most implementations do not currently have an effective way of filtering out fake accounts. I’m sure that the developers will step in if this becomes a bigger problem. Until then, remember that votes are just a number.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s an idea: adjust the weights of votes by how predictable they are.

    If account A always upvotes account B, those upvotes don’t count as much—not just because A is potentially a bot, but because A’s upvotes don’t tell us anything new.

    If account C upvotes a post by account B, but there was no a priori reason to expect it to based on C’s past history, that upvote is more significant.

    This could take into account not just the direct interactions between two accounts, but how other accounts interact with each of them, whether they’re part of larger groups that tend to vote similarly, etc.

    • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if account B only ever posts high quality content? What if everybody upvotes account B because their content is so good? What if they rarely post so it would be reasonable that a smaller subset of the population has ever seen their posts?

      Your theory assumes large volumes of constant posts seen by a wide audience, but that’s not how these sites work, your ideal would censor and disadvantage many accounts.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If an account is upvoted because it’s posting high-quality content, we’d expect those votes to come from a variety of accounts that don’t otherwise have a tendency to vote for the same things.

        Suppose you do regression analysis on voting patterns to identify the unknown parameters determining how accounts vote. These will mostly correlate with things like interests, political views, geography, etc.—and with bot groups—but the biggest parameter affecting votes will presumably correlate with a consensus view of the general quality of the content.

        But accounts won’t get penalized if their votes can be predicted by this parameter: precisely because it’s the most common parameter, it can be ignored when identifying voting blocs.

        • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If an account is upvoted because it’s posting high- quality content, we’d expect those votes to come from a variety of accounts that don’t otherwise have a tendency to vote for the same things.

          No, I completely disagree and reject your premise.

          Many times really high quality content will be voted for by only a small subset of the population.

          In general people will vote for lowest common denominator widely appealing click bait. That type of content will get varied voters because of wide appeal. Discerning voters represent a smaller but consistent subset of the population, and this proposed algorithm will penalize that and just lead to more low quality widely appealing click bait.

          • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, the “consensus view of general quality” will depend on the opinions of your user base—but if that’s the source of your objection, your issue is with the user base and not vote manipulation per se.

            • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your oversimplification makes it sound like this is just my personal preference, and not a natural tendency of humans or social media interactions.

              This is not just “I like X more”, this is “humans on a large scale act like probabilistic decision trees and will converge on lowest common denominator dopamine fountains without careful checks and considerations”

              The latter is necessary for high quality networked media and discussion

    • AeroSoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That could lead to unintended consequences. For example, if a comic series has a loyal fanbase that loves every comic, those votes wouldn’t count for as much anymore.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In that situation, what function do the upvotes serve in the first place? If the potential audience already knows they’re going to read and enjoy more content from the same source, do they need to see upvotes to tell them what they already know?

        (Remember that without effective permanent karma, upvotes only serve to call attention to particular posts or comments in the short term.)

        • AeroSoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Comics are usually posted in general comic spaces. A comic that has a following is probably better than one that doesn’t, so those ones should still be bumped up in those spaces. Plus, not everyone follows individual creators even if they like and upvote all of their comics when they see them.