So humans for you

Posting on the google store sucks, they make you jump through hoops and will collect data. If the app is already open source, there is no good reason to put it on the google play store.

Also, I don’t really understand the point of the term side loading when Android doesn’t prevent you to from adding other software sources. It feels like it carries connotations when all you are doing is adding a very well established open source software repository.

It would solve two of your problems though, that’s a pretty good bargain.

Yeah I’ve been very happy with Gboard recommendations, I disabled networking for the app since I’m using GrapheneOS and it still does great. Even voice to text is scary good, just have to download the model before disabling networking.

Oh man I would just make it a point to celebrate getting a C with my colleagues. “Champion Rank” or something lol.

I was referring to the goals that you listed in the previous comment. It seems like you entire argument is that I do not have any objective data on subjective goals. And yes, the presence of moderators and community/platform rules also reveals a desire to control the way people express themselves.

This post isn’t a submission for a code change, its to get the conversation started on the problem (that you refuse to acknowledge) of users who predominantly leave downvotes. Your persistence about my lack of data is goofy, just nip it in the bud and say you will only consider policy changes proposed by moderators with stats to back their proposal. This is post is supposed to be the thing that might spur someone with the data to then look into it.

You think humans are counting the numbers on paper? You write code for that. And what I’m saying is that there is no value in votes from those that see fit to predominantly downvote. This isn’t a matter of freedom, the platform isn’t aspiring to be a government.

Fair enough lol sorry for splitting comments, I just wanted to sepererate this from the bog of my other comments. I will address that tomorrow when I’m a little more put together. I appreciate the discussion.

Ensuring users can’t only leave negative feedback has nothing to do with sexual harassment. I can see the contrived connection you made after reading the explanation but it was not nearly strong enough to leave that comment without context. Even with context it’s merely an inappropriate connection.

Aren’t they already leaving comments and mass upvoting those when they are brigading? This solution does not necessarily help brigades nor any really determined people, it merely adds more friction to those who predominantly downvote at the cost of them engaging elsewhere.

If the intention is to create an open, impartial forum for discussion and community interaction, then no such action should be taken.

If ensuring that users can’t predominantly give negative feedback violates your understanding of the intention, surely the existence of moderators does as well.

It really doesn’t matter what I think

Nice dodge. I don’t think its a generalization, I think its inherently perpendicular to the goals of the platform. There is no way to objectively measure that, and only the mods have the stats to attempt to approximate it with a large margin of error and shakey axioms.

I think this is a very specific case that only effects a small but vocal subset of users. And yes, I think trolls who spam downvotes need parenting. The existence of moderators suggests we can’t be trusted to say anything we want. Again, good faith users will never hit this limitation.

Have you considered the consequence of someone seeing that message and realizing they are being overly negative? It still allows unlimited downvotes, but introduces more effort only for the “downvote trolls”. Even seeing a popup and acknowledging they are downvoting more than upvoting would increase the friction.

It could increase polarization due to those now required to upvote, but orients people to encourage more which engages users.

Do you think users that contribute downvotes more than anything add to the community interaction and help create open discussions? I personally think they inhibit that and discourage others from sharing. This is a limit that practically should not be reached by any good faith users, so I do not anticipate a net negative effect.

Lol oops.

To be fair you just said it has no effect, but then said getting downvotes makes you consider the comment. I think we can describe that as at least a little bit of effect.

I considered this and definitely think it would apply. Though, I guess I think it would still point us in a net positive direction.

I still value seeing downvotes, just not from users who predominantly downvote stuff.

I’m not actually sure what point you are making, I am not suggesting we eliminate downvotes.

Absolutely, I agree that upvotes dont mean much without downvotes. My solution actually makes downvotes more meaningful. It ensures the downvotes are from someone who engages in the community, rather than a troll.

This is true, but if you care about the platform enough to attempt to steer the direction of the content (away from hate), you should be upvoting the content that brings value to your life.

As for bots, thats a higher level issue the mods/devs already have to deal with.

A global count, not post specific.