Downvotes = “I disagree” or “this is bad and you should feel bad”?
I think I’ve settled on the latter. Disagreement is maybe best communicated by the absence of an upvote? And downvotes work best when they signal something that is just off base, and while not reportable, is not appreciated at a broad cultural level.
Downvote for bad technical advise, I think the person is a bad actor/bad faith argument, or if the person turns hostile to ad hominem attacks. I try not to downvote if I’m putting the effort into debating someone.
I agree with this. If I’m scrolling through a Linux forum and someone is stating something demonstrably incorrect, I don’t want someone to stumble on the post and run into difficulties so I always downvote that particular post and upvote the posts with the right answer.
Now, if I disagree with someone that’s different.
Like if I’m in a thread about your favourite tv show, I don’t downvote someone I disagree with because it’s subjective. I might upvote the people I agree with, but it doesn’t seem fair to downvote someone’s opinion.
But some things are either right or wrong, and your example of bad technical advice is one such thing
I think of it like a digital facial expression. Upvoting is akin to smiling or conveying some other positive emotion like affirmation or understanding (even if the subject matter is inherently negative). Downvote is the opposite- someone says something irl that makes you frown or grimmace, or you know they’re telling you a lie, your expression can convey that without a single word. Here, downvote.
There’s no real etiquette - if you feel like you want to give an up or down vote, just do it and don’t put too much thought into it.
Does the thought of the person, that you plan to downvote, crying themselves to sleep make you happy? Then you should downvote them. I think that’s what they wanted to say.
It’s weird how nobody ever goes off on these philosophical treatises about what a downvote is REALLY supposed to be for unless they copped a shit ton of downvotes for their awful takes
To quote the famed philosopher T. Soprano: “Alright, but you gotta get over it.”
I don’t that’s entirely fair or true across the board. I haven’t received a ton of downvotes or anything, but realised that I didn’t know what to do with the downvote and that some were clearly using downvotes where I don’t think I would have.
For my, it was more sympathetic. I was thinking about people who do get downvoted and whether I’m ok with that.
I’ve always been partial to “irrelevant to the discussion”.
For example: if a post is detailing increased temperatures compared to a previous year: ✅ Comment saying “This is most likely an effect of global warming” ✅ Comment saying “This paper is potentially biased as the paper/publication is sponsored” ✅ Replies to these comments discussing the legitimacy of their claims (for or against them) ⛔ Comment which is promoting their own content (even if related) with no discussion of the linked post ⛔ Intentionally incendiary comments. “Liberals will say it’s climate change I bet.” ⛔ Completely off topic. “Ok but guys let’s talk about SCARING THE HOES for a second here. Straight flames.”
Too many people use a downvote as “I disagree” when a comment may actually provide a different viewpoint and - as long as it’s respectful and open to counterpoints itself - can be a nice addition to the discussion.
I think this is very close to the most solid answer possible. Like
This is Bad content
I agree completely with this bit. Downvotes are inherently subjective, as is the concept of Bad content. But to make a choice of what to downvote, someone has to identify something worth deeming downvotable, and screw it, that’s a good way to deacribe what the majority of what falls under that umbrella.
The next bit is where I’d make a correction.
which I want others to see less of
You can’t unsee that bad content, it’s too late. And you can’t guarantee that downvoting will dissuade its continued presence. The only correlation between the two involves an expected emotional attachment between the posters of the bad content and their scoring outcome, and that’s not always here nor there. Bad content posters can be persistent.
But downvoting it has an immediate effect on the visibility of the Bad content for other people. It also labels that content. Doing so, puts it away from other people’s eyes, and tells others that someone thinks it should be put away. Maybe they’ll come to agree or disagree with that downvote, maybe it’ll lead to you seeing less content. Also no guarantee. But that immediate effect, the visibility and the score, can not be taken away.
In either scenario, it’s a communication tool. It may relate to your wishes for content, but mechanically, its impact is felt by a third party.
Let say there is a news story of a horrible event. I will up vote it so people see it and read it to learn. I am not up voting it because I am promoting the horrible event.
That’s what a lot of us agreed it was for a long time ago, but most people use it as an “I don’t like this”, or “I disagree” button. Some people even use it as an “I don’t like you personally” button. There were a few times on Reddit when I got into an argument with someone and they went through my profile and downvoted everything they saw until they got bored.
I feel like this is a good approach. Honestly an invisible voting system might be better cause how many up or down votes something has prevents others from fully forming their own opinion.
I stick to the original “Reddiquette” which I wish more people stuck to or even fucking READ for a start.
Downvotes were meant for off-topic and spam nonsense. They were NEVER meant for disagreement. If you disagreed with someone you were encouraged to comment in response. It fostered a much better and interesting community with people of differeing views not afraid to voice their dissent.
You would literally get right and left-wingers having heated but civil debates with each other and neither would be getting heavily downvoted. Can you imagine that happening on Reddit nowadays?
When Diggers and the general populace jumped on Reddit downvotes just turned into a spiteful and underhanded way of saying “Fuck your opinion and I don’t feel like justifying it”.
This resulted in echo chambers where people were too afraid to voice their true opinions cos they’d get downvoted and at worst banned from the subreddit by over-zealous mods who’d forgotten what downvotes were for.
I have a personal theory that this accelerated the polarisation of politics across the English-speaking world. Maybe if Republicans* didn’t get so heavily downvoted they wouldn’t have turned to places like The_Donald and 8chan to vent in like-minded echo chambers. They could discuss things without getting villified and have their views challenged in a civil manner.
*NB. Shouldn’t matter but to be clear I’m a left wing Brit. I’m just using Donald Trump/Democrats as a will known divisive issue.
I LOVE Lemmy because it has the oldschool Reddit vibe where people will disagree and neither person is downvoting the other. They just have civil discussion. Much better!!
Personally I NEVER downvote unless it’s utterly meaningless, pointless or just downright spam. I recently added one more trigger for me to downvote though: Low effort bullshit like “This” or puns that add ntohing to the conversation except to garner upvotes for their ‘comedic’ value.
There’s difference in disagreeing in opionion and thinking someone is just wrong. In the latter case, I find it reasonable to suppress their comment using downvotes.
This right here. For a while after moving to Lemmy, people were using voting like this. Now it’s back to downvotes everywhere on things people disagree on.
Add comment