I dislike using downvote as a disagree button. Makes me feel like I'm discouraging people from sharing an opinion that's different than mine. Even if they are wrong (in good faith) I think I'd rather they feel it is a safe place to be wrong and just own the mistake with an edit or a reply. I know it makes me feel bad (I know I should have thicker skin) when I'm downvoted for having an opinion so I don't want to make others feel that way.
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
36 points (77.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43336 readers
807 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree about not using it just to disagree with an opinion, but I do think the ability to downvote is very important. It just needs to be clear that it's supposed to be used to reduce the impact of stuff this is either harmful or just distracts from the conversation.
If I'm in a thread talking about what the best flavor of milkshake is, I will absolutely upvote someone claiming that chocolate is the best even though they are "objectively" wrong. They are however engaging with the conversation. On the other hand, someone who comes in saying that they hate milkshakes and prefer lemonade, while they're not exactly wrong in having that opinion, it would be worthy of a downvote because they're in the wrong place for that comment.
And then there's the bots/people that if they lost the ability to ever talk again, the world would be a better place. Never feel sorry for downvoting them.
You have a point. I did find myself downvoting much of what I disagreed with on Reddit. I wouldn't mind seeing everyone break that habit here. Maybe that should be stickied in some official welcome to Lemmy etiquette post.
Nope. Downvotes are there to be used, so I use them.
I usually downvote not because I disagree but because I think the comment is low effort or written in bad faith.
For any weird, bigoted stuff, lots of downvotes and no replies is hopefully the message an OP needs to receive to get the hint that they should by plying their recruitment attempts elsewhere. Engaging them is probably the worst thing to do.
I've had to remember that there's automatic hiding though, and do that manually.
Definitely agree with that, I very much so still downvote bigoted comments and posts though I think I’ve only encountered two comments like that so far. Lemmy mods and admins are doing a great job.
I was Reading a post earlier tonight where someone shared an anti Covid view point and dropped the whole big Pharma/government groupthink garbage.
Every comment was telling them they would not be accepted here with those views.
I checked a few hours later and the conspiracists comment was gone, but it did have the largest number of downvotes I’ve come across yet at 150ish.
An echo chamber we need not be, but conspiracy garbage we need not at all.
I just miss when conspiracies were fun and not essentially a threat to one’s livelihood.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've never changed my voting habits. I downvote trolls, hate, spam, and irrelevant content. I never downvote out of disagreement, nor do I use the upvote as an agreement button. I will upvote people I disagree with/am debating with if I believe they are promoting relevant discussion. That is how voting is intended to be used.
I don't downvote if I disagree but I can't help but upvotes in agreement. Positive reinforcement is my thing.
Same for me, my only difficulty is discerning whether the commenter is promoting relevant discussion or doing some variant of gishgallop or sealioning.
Some variant of what's it?
I had to look it up. Basically bad faith actors.
Gish gallop: "This Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Sealioning: "Sealioning' is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
They should make it so that replying to a comment automatically disables your ability to downvote it.
Would simultaneously prevent people trading downvotes while they argue back and forth, and encourage people to simply ignore trolls and move on without replying.
If a post contains incorrect information that could be dangerous, you should be able to reply to it and also downvote it so that the incorrect information becomes less visible. For example, if someone said you should pinch your nose and lean your head back when you get a nosebleed. You should be able to correct them and still downvote to make the incorrect information less visible.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Same. For me, upvote = adding something to the conversation. That's why I upvote most comments I come across, and rarely downvote people.
As time goes on I've been using the down vote more freely. Generally for anything I find low quality. I used to be more restrained with it but now I see it more as another tool that I have to shape the kind of content that gets promoted in the communities I interact with. It's the only option beyond withholding an upvote to keep low effort posts, trolling, and bigotry out of your communities other than reporting, which shouldn't do anything unless a post breaks the rules.
I intentionally joined an instance that doesn't allow it. I do it kind of compulsively on other sites but really don't feel good about it. Plus I always found it hurtful when people did it to me just because I didn't know something or had a polite disagreement. Downvoting reminds me of the 6 Million Merits episode of Black Mirror (if that's what it's called). Now when I try to downvote Lemmy says nope can't do that and I feel happy and relieved!
I’m not much of a downvoter, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with you downvoting a lot.
Downvotes are a key feature of this kind of thing, and lots of people have argued lack of a “I vote to suppress this content” feature in facebook is why it’s such a haven for conspiracy theories and crazy nonsense.
A good feedback and control system needs actuators in both directions. The downvote button is a valuable tool and I am totally happy to hear about you using it a lot.
If you don’t mind my asking, why are you trying to make this change? What do you think might be wrong with it, for you?
Not really, I've only ever down voted something that I thought really needed to be down voted. There is a reason why the down vote buttons exist but they should really only be used when you have a good reason to use them.
It's funny though, because I have the exact opposite problem, as I up vote pretty much every post I see. While that is better, I understand that it's probably also bad in it's own way.
I think it wouldn't hurt to upvote more than what you normally do on Reddit while you're on Lemmy. The community here is smaller and it'll benefit a lot of more people interacted with the site by upvoting.
I don’t know if absolute numbers would really help. Like it doesn’t bother me that I haven’t seen any lemmy posts with 35k score yet.
Just so long as there’s some variation in scores that we can use for sorting content, it works.
Why do you think I joined the instance I did?
Downvoting is useful for pushing irrelevant/spam comments down but it is definitely overused.
It's not used for pushing irrelevant or spammy content. It's used to show you don't agree and push that content away from sight. At least be honest about that if you support using downvotes.
People act like they are making the thread better in some way by cleaning trash. But that's not what happens. You are just making sure opinions you don't agree with are at the bottom of the thread. Nothing noble about that. Feels good, sure.
You're phrasing it in a way that is actively harmful. It's like you're trying to make downvotes worse than they are.
They're absolutely useful, but not for just opinions you don't like.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I only downvoted some really racist comments on Reddit and the EA post as well.
HackerNews has an interesting approach: You can't downvote comments unless you reach a certain amount of "Karma", and you can't downvote posts at all, you can "flag" them, meaning you think they don't belong here. Flagging doesn't affect the vote count, but massive flagging does make the post appear lower in the feed, and alerts mods.
This, alongside the tight moderation and zero-tolerance towards flame wars in the comments makes HackerNews one of the best places on the internet imho.
Completely agree on all points.
An additional one I’d argue is a huge part of HN’s success is their employment of a full-time moderator, dang, who does a great job.
That's a great step if it's something worth replying to. Not everything is.
I don't think I have downvoted anyone in Lemmy yet.
But post and comment quality is much higher than Reddit.
I downvoted that post that was an advertisement for crypto
up/down voting is simply a way to help comments you think are good, or agree with, become more/less dominant in the thread.
In some cases, comments are useful to explain why - but often that's just not the case.
Honestly, for a while on Reddit, downvote was the only action other than posting comments that I engaged with on Reddit, mostly because I never felt strongly enough to upvote or block or save. And then I went in and seriously prunes Subreddits and basically cut all the Subreddits that I would ever downvote in and the ones that were negativity based like all the Subreddits dedicated to showcasing trashy, racist or otherwise shitty people. Also, any subs generally based in being down on something, even if it was something that everyone should be down on. Also nixed subs like latestagecapitalism because while I broadly agreed with the sentiment, they very vitriolic about everything. Reddit really improved for me since then. Highly recommended, I then spent a lot more time upvoting and commenting. Obviously don't have that problem on Lemmy.
No, my up/down vote policy remains the same. I only downvote when I find the comment aggressive, rude or inappropriate. Occasionally I downvote something that is incorrect, but if the reason is that then I don't downvote to negative values. I don't think giving an incorrect answer deserves a negative ratio.
I’m definitely more open to interactions on here. The fediverse, and lemmy especially, feel more like a community and not just an endless sea content.
Yeah I’ve started getting into a couple reddit style arguments here and feeling that feeling again just makes me say “nah” and be a little nicer to keep it from going that way, or just bail if it seems unavoidable.
It’s so refreshing to have respectful conversations here.
Yeah everyone I’ve seen here seems so nice compared to reddit.
If youre really into that, you should have signed up at Beehaw. They have downvotes disabled.
Personally, Imma keep doing it. Not because Im petty. But if I really disagree with something, I feel like it helps me avoid replying with something stupid or hurtful.
Downvotes really shouldn’t be for comments or submissions that you disagree with, but for anything that does not add to the conversation. Reddit started off with this guideline too, but at some point votes turned into agree/disagree.
People always said the same thing on Reddit too, but there’s a lot of stuff that “adds to a conversation” that needs to be downvoted. Just because something “adds to a conversation” doesn’t mean that the people shouldn’t express that it’s an awful comment or viewpoint by downvoting.
For instance, on a history article about Nazis someone could say “well some were bad, but not all were. Plus the good they did around the world was actually a lot better than people give them credit for like introducing a universal basic income or providing their citizens with jobs and healthcare for all.”
Like… it’s a viewpoint… but by not downvoting that viewpoint you’re basically allowing someone to say Nazis aren’t bad. Which to me is why the downvote button is there in the first place. Good, well thought out comments that add to a conversation should be upvoted, but awful comments should be downvoted too. People just need to be more well intentioned about when they’re downvoting a viewpoint they disagree with.
I agree. I'd say that expressing a viewpoint that derails the conversation and people already know is wrong definitely does not add to the conversation, and should be downvoted.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't understand this mentality to begin with? Downvoting without context is like cursing at a random person in public and then drive away.
That’s not really a great comparison. Downvoting is a way to say you disagree with someone without getting into an argument. And if I think of my personal experience, most of the posts/comments I would downvote on Reddit are about things that there is no point getting into an argument about.
view more: next ›