Sometimes someone hits a bot with them however they're too effective at stifling topics and the trade offs are skewed. I can throw 10k sats - measly rn - and hide a post forever on a topic I don't like people being exposed to. What's their point besides censoring? I'd rather see bots comments and silly posts than miss important discussions. Their inclusion has degraded the integrity of this site.
pull down to refresh
A bit alarmist saying censoring, when downzapped posts are all made easily available, don't you think?
https://stacker.news/top/posts/week?by=downsats
I mostly agree, however, there was that BIP 110 post (#1512794) and I was talking with the author on nostr (they had misunderstood some of how SN works and thought downzapping could be used to "suppress" points of view and probably because all this filter stuff is so darn emotional for people she seemed to feel that SN was being unfair to her. So I was pointing out that her post had actually done quite well...and then somebody downzapped it 14k sats. Which is exactly how this is supposed to work (peopel can vote with their sats) and yet it also is not a great way to foster discussion it seems.
Ah -- i missed that. A shame because the author had other interesting contrarian posts esrlier in week (e.g. #1511251).
Would this be an example of free speech not being "free?" i.e. someone needs to put up to have something published? Visibility needs capital (monetery, social or otherwise) etc.?
As a side note, I was one "casualty" of the downzapping doldrums back earlier this year, and so I can sympathize, it's not fun being subjected to that.
Makes me think: Is there a filter for organic content only that removes boosted posts from the front page?
Those two (boosts and downzaps) are like yin and yang in my mental model.
nice. i see where youre coming from.
Neat, so functionally similar to an "ad blocker"?
Yes kinda.
Though I see a boosted post broader than just advertising. I look at it as more generic attention whoring when you as the author don't believe it is strong enough to rise enough attention on merit alone. (And care enough to pay and force it.)
And downzapping then as the counterpart when you as the reader believe it will or has received more attention than you think the content alone merits.
You can throw a measly 10k sats boosting your own post and no one will even attempt to downzap it - unless the content is so bad that everyone teams up to remove it.
Really?
Then explain this- the most downzapped post ever on SNs...296,452 downzaps and counting...
The 'Greater Israel' project proposes that military aggression is justified. WW3
I think it demonstrates the point.
You boosted it 314,675 sats.
It was downzapped 296,452 sats.
Yes I spent 314675 sats to raise an issue I think is important.
In the limited time the post was visible 14700 odd sats and CCs agreed it is an important issue.
Someone responded anonymously, slyly and persistently to censor that content.
I am disincentivised to waste sats on content promotion as a result.
The sly anon censor wins.
You are happy with that result?
SNs continues toward economic insolvency by allowing anonymous censorship.
Is every downzapper a censor?
The problem with downzapping and Sybil boosting is they are concealed.
Boosting openly is transparent and identified to the source.
Sybil boosting and downzapping are not owned and identifiable to the person enacting them.
If you wish to downzap content let your identity be known just the same as the poster you are downzapping has identified themselves.
The current settings are protecting sly sybil/downzap behaviour and impeding open honest content providers.
Downzapping is censorship - anonymous downzapping is removing accountability from that censorship.
Downzapping that identifies the downzapper attaches accountability to the act of censorship.
Accountability that currently is absent.
if I recall correctly you were using downzaps quite heavily in January. why were you censoring people?
I have explained this multiple times.
Because people were refusing to address the issue raised...but instead seeking to shoot the messenger.
It continues, it seems.
I never sought to conceal my downzapping and was always 100% open about why I was downzapping.
It seems you were not listening then, as you appear to still not understand something I have explained multiple times already.
Downzapping is a temporary band-aid, not a permanent solution. People can simply boost their posts, and bots will just keep generating similar spam. How many sats are you actually willing to burn to police the feed?
I generally prefer to just ignore posts I don't care for rather than downzapping or muting stackers over a difference in taste. However, I'll admit there are certain posts that absolutely deserve to be downzapped.
This is a great question.
I suppose the alternative to downzapping is that people zap the things they like with more frequency and to a greater degree. This would make it so that slop and bots and self-zapping boosts have to work harder for attention.
But at the moment a 1k sat zap gets you on the front page pretty reliably.
Totally
Downzapping has been tackled a few times (though not necessarily resolved) -- #1480924, #621288.
There was a recent case that made me think about it again and it is true that downzaps can hide content, which seems bad.
I see them playing a role (as you point out) in burrying the annoying bot-slop that seems to be trickling in on every post now days.
I also see a role for downzaps when it comes to counteracting self-zapping (boosts). If there are no downzaps, wouldn't we be at the mercy of people who want to pay to have their content show up on the front page?
Since, according to k00b, Stacker News is still in beta, it doesn't much matter how effective a 10k downzap is. We're trying to work out the mechanics of the site and establish proof of concept.
If Stacker News becomes larger, suppressing good content will become more costly. If this still seems like a problem, maybe we'd experiment with zaprank models that also account for how many zappers there are on each side and how trusted they are by the community. We could also experiment with personalized feeds some more.
Ultimately, downzapping does useful stuff and is an obvious part of using money as the moderator.
You already are at the mercy of posters who use Sly Sybil zaps to boost their content.
Such posters dominate the front page and have done for a long time.
Do you have a solution for the Sly Sybil boosters who have long dominated content?
Also, posters who are prepared to spend sats to raise issues they think are important are one of the ways in which SNs might one day become a viable economic proposition capable of sustained earnings - however if pay to post posters are hit by anonymous, repeated and determined downzapping censorship they likely will stop spending sats to boost content.
downzapping is an attempt at a solution
But Sybil zappers are not easily identified- they conceal their self boosting and thus downzapping is unlikely to solve this problem.
Likewise with downzappers able to hide their nym they can defeat the intent to pay to boost content providers who openly boost their content.
Under the current system both sybil boosters and anonymous downzappers are advantaged while those openly boosting content are punished.
The current setting reward sly anon downzapping and sybil boosting and punish open, honest boosting.
Thats EXACTLY what happened to the post I made (below) about some new freedom tech projects that I like... took me ages to write and was relegated from the front pages almost immediately. I didn't understand why until now. I don't get why anyone would - in good conscience - downzap a post about freedom tech?!?
Post is here: #1506921
I haven't bothered posting anything since. Seems like a waste of time tbf. If someone wants to copy and paste it into a new post, please go ahead, because hardly anybody will have seen it, which is kinda disappointing given the effort.
Man "ages" of the HOTTEST, earnest, honest, unpaid, marketing-free, and human flesh and blood effort wasted. The world hasn't weeped yet, but it should.
"Their" refers to what here, bots or downzaps?
Wasting sats on downvoting.
The usefulness of downvotes is a personal mark on somebody. Like a reminder for later.