Which - to me - is a good thing.
Do not know what downvotes are.
// image title: a lemmy post which shows a multiple of comments in regards to its upvotes/downvotes
Which - to me - is a good thing.
Do not know what downvotes are.
// image title: a lemmy post which shows a multiple of comments in regards to its upvotes/downvotes
Semi-tangential. Every time I get downvoted, I move an inch closer to the exit door of this community.
I’m talking about comments rather than posts, of course. And it should go without saying that the comments in question do not contain factual errors or even rudeness. Just pure opinion, expressed civilly.
Downvoting is, almost always, poisonous behavior in an online community. It is just as poisonous as saying “Shut up” to someone in a real-life social situation.
IMO the corporate social networks get this fact better than the literalist geeky types and other well-meaning idealists to be found in this forum.
Lol OK bye.
Nobody gives a shit and complaining about down votes is the quickest way to get them.
Guess what! Outside of a few custom instances that for some reason want to be reddit, the fediverse doesn’t track your total karma.
Unless you’re going back to keep track of your comments for some weird reason, the only time you see a down voted comment is when you get replies.
I could have hundreds of net down votes by now, but I don’t know because luckily my instance doesn’t track votes.
The point is, it’s a little number next to an arrow. Who gives a shit.
Yeah I know that I’m courting downvotes here but that doesn’t disprove my argument.
My argument is that downvoting opinions expressed in a thoughtful way is just uncivil. It degrades the atmosphere. It causes the less thick-skinned to shut up, to self-censor, to leave. The inevitable result will be less civil conversation, less participants, and - to caricature it a bit - just a bunch of guys shouting and snarking and sniping and generally “not giving a shit”.
And let’s be honest, you probably are a guy. I am too BTW.
Personally, I use downvotes to say “I disagree with this and/or it is a stupid/bad/bigoted/etc take, but I do not wish to spend the time and effort to respond and get dragged into a text-based mudfight with someone who is unlikely to speak to me politely, no matter how polite I try to be in my rebuttal.”
I like having a way to say “no, bad, stop that” without having to spend time trying to explain things or engage with someone who I think is beyond convincing anyways.
So far, a great articulation of what (I guess) most downvoters are thinking.
But I’m not sure you’re being honest with yourself here. Certainly not if you’re talking about my comments, which are always polite if sometimes a bit forthright because I’m a direct kind of person.
Nicely put, again. But then: why should your antagonist “stop that”? They should shut up just because you disagree with them?
We come back to the crucial element: civility. If one believes in free speech, and the right of others to have their own opinions and to have a voice, I still see absolutely justification for downvoting a thoughtfully expressed opinion.
I don’t agree with you here but I respect your right to have an opinion and I would never think of downvoting you for it. If that comes across as sanctimonious, so be it. I prefer to see it as just coherent with values. Which I’m sure you share, by the way.
Usually, when I disagree with something, it is because it is incorrect, lying, or particularly mean-spirited. I disagree with people that do not think that every human deserves the same rights. I disagree with people that push for ideologies that would strip other humans of their rights, or that would inflict needless suffering. I don’t downvote people when I disagree with what media they think is good or something. I downvote those that express ideas that are antithetical to what I see as basic human decency or that are factually incorrect.
Factually incorrect, sure. But do you not see that your other criteria are very subjective? Rights, suffering, decency, these are all slippery non-binary concepts. Others may define them differently from you. Presumably you don’t think that others are not allowed to have their own opinions, yet in effect you’re telling them that. I think I already know which way you vote and, believe it or not, I vote that way too. But in my understanding of history, treating the views of others as invalid is generally a dangerous path to be on.
That’s why it’s a disagreement. I’m not necessarily saying their opinions are factually incorrect, just that they are devoid of empathy, morally reprehensible, and antithetical to the teachings of the religious figure that they are statistically likely to claim to be faithful to. A lack of empathy should not be rewarded.
While it is easy to fall into this trap of disagree downvotes, they should really not be used that way. All that does is turn them into a popularity contest. Downvotes should be used on comments that do not improve the thread. This may be because they are wrong, made in bad faith, rude, or otherwise, but not simply because you disagree. Ideally we would have different buttons for this like the forums of old, but no one seems interested in that nowadays.
Typically, the things I disagree with are the things like bad faith arguments, lies, rudeness, or bigoted ideals that purport that not all humans deserve equal rights, etc.
What buttons were them?
Instead of up/down buttons you would have a set of buttons such as “Agree”, “Disagree”, “Funny”, “Useful”, etcetera. The only website I know of that still uses these is Ravelry.
Ahh, that is a neat thought. Thanks for elaborating and sharing.
By community, do you mean just this particular Lemmy community or the community on Lemmy collectively? If the latter, there are other alternative Lemmy communities on other instances that may be better suited for you.
Just would hate to see someone leave Lemmy over toxic energy in one place. There’s a big world here in fediverse!
There’s always the option to join an instance with downvoting disabled or to turn off the vote tallies yourself in your account settings.
Having trouble wrapping my mind around this. The post is on Site A. My comment is on Site B. The evil downvoter sees it on Site C. Um - what happens next?
Already did that, the exact number is a waste of screen space.
I don’t deny that voting is helpful when it’s used to rate the quality of the contribution - i.e. whether or not it adds values, makes you think. But to vote based on how much you subjectively agree or disagree is completely useless, it’s all about the person voting and nothing about the comment. It adds literally nothing and when it’s a downvote it stifles and poisons the atmosphere too. Anyway, I’ve made my point.
You don’t ever know that evildoer downvoted, because vote totals never drop below 1 (technically 0 but assume OP doesn’t undo the default vote or you downvote). Other instances can still see the vote totals. You can still easily tell popular things from unpopular things but without the downvoters affecting the way YOU see the content.
It does a lot of things but one example would be if someone were to downvote something out of spite with all their alt accounts. Depending on sorting and whatnot you or someone else may not see that content on an instance with downvoting enabled because it usually gets pushed down or collapsed. Without downvoting that content will instead show as something with few upvotes and more or less be blended normally with the rest of the comments.
To confirm: an unpopular comment posted on downvoting-enabled Site A will show higher when viewed on downvoting-disabled Site B? Or only if it was actually posted on Site B?
More or less yes, depending on how you have your sorting set and if the comment/post has any positive interactions. At worst it just shows as something with a single upvote and is sorted based on time or however it fits inline with other content with similar vote numbers. Since it’s removing the outliers you see a better overall picture of what’s being said IMO. It’s up to you to decide if that’s positive, negative, or even something you care about.
It affects how people on instances with downvotes disabled see it no matter where it was posted from. Basically the downvotes simply do not exist to instances that have them disabled.
Really helpful. Gonna act on this information.
It is still important to be able to disagree publicly with people who’s opinions are just wrong, such as those saying something is trash because it is old, or not answering the asked question but instead answering some useless hypothetical about “safety”.
You mean “the former”. But this is a counter-argument that dares not speak its name. My proposition is that all online communities suffer when opinions are downvoted (which is how the downvote button is overwhelmingly used), not just this community. Just as all dinner parties suffer when someone points their finger at someone else and says, “Shut up, you’re wrong”.
I disagree. Communities suffer when noise outweighs signal.
This is to explicitly invalidate other people’s opinions. We are talking about points of view expressing civilly, not about irrelevancy.
Would a dinner party suffer if it had 10,000 people at the table and instead of saying “shut up” people could just turn the volume knob down on someone else a little, but nobody’s voice would get silenced unless more people turned the knob down on them than up?
What if the dinner party were open invitation?
Downvotes fold comments and sort them last. It’s signal inhibition.
I heard downvotes expressed a consensus that a comment or post does not hold value in the context of that community. It’s not “shut up” but more “well that’s not relevant”.
Unsure if you’re even being serious here. The relevancy of the subject matter is not in question. The issue at hand is that people are downvoting opinions. Forgive my directness but if an opinion does not hold value in the context of the community, that seems to me just a waffly way of saying that the opinion is not welcome in the community without actually saying it.
Unfortunately people don’t see voting systems as a method to highlight the relavency of a contribution. They see it as a like/dislike system, and so I see as shut up signal used by most because downvoting a contribution buries it to the bottom where few people will see it.
If it was used for relevancy and quaility then communities would be self regulating by the users. I believe Reddit’s guidelines state(s/d) it’s voting system was meant to be for relevancy, even though most people use it as a like/dislike system.
You might find a better environment at Beehaw? Not my cup of tea, but each to their own.
Yes, others have suggested that too. Thanks.
Yeah I’m always confused by the people who are like the downvote button is for off topic discussions. Like no that’s reporting and functionally the downvote button is the “I had a negative reaction to this button” and the up vote is the “I had a positive reaction to this button”
Personally I don’t downvote anyone because it just feels petty and pointless. Some of my favorite comments have loads of downvotes and to me it just makes whatever dumb shit I said funnier
Exactly this.
If you’re talking about your comments, and you laugh at others who downvote them, then well done. But I submit that most humans are not so thick-skinned.
There’s also the question of visibility: downvoting a comment is not just saying “You’re wrong”, it’s making the comment less visible to others. A form of censorship, basically. I personally find it extremely annoying and unfair when it happens.
Perhaps it also has to do with how much time and thought you put into the offending comment.
Man you can’t be spending more than 30 seconds on a comment. If its taking longer to write out just delete it and move on. If you’ve really got something to say in longer than 30 seconds make a post about it
Not bad advice, admittedly
Obviously my argument is being confirmed by the response to this comment. Seriously guys - I would bet that you’re all guys - you’ll regret it when you’re left with nobody to talk to but other cynics and nihilists and mindless jokers.
Weirdly sexist take…
I gave you some from a girl to help balance things out!
But I can promise you, from many years net positive on reddit and a not disimilar result here, that you’re not reading your own tone.
Be mindful of the tone, only come off as combative against a near universally disliked topic, and know when you don’t care to curate yourself and are ready for the downvotes.
Your wording here makes you out to be combative, and people are combative in response. Read your own comments as if they’re directed AT you. And look specifically at what’s likely to make you want to argue back. You may even be surprised at what can get net positive response with the right wording.
This is an excellent point, very perceptive and well expressed, and the first time somebody has actually said it. I know it already and I do try to do as you suggest. The problem is that I have a bit of a combative personality so it’s a real struggle, especially when I feel I’m choosing my words very intentionally so that nothing is literally insulting or wrong or falsifiable. A combative lawyer basically, what could possibly go wrong? I often wish I could be more emollient and compromising in my attitude to others, I really do admire it when I see it in others. But alas personality is something very hard to change. So yeah, thanks for the insightful and constructive feedback. And take an upvote to add to your overflowing and deserved collection.
And people like me who don’t go away just because they get downvoted.
You can go find your community of all positive interactions, and well keep our positive/negative mix.