1410
Facts (lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago

Downvotes should only be used for comments that are off topic, factually incorrect, hateful or made in bad faith etc.

How you think that people should use downvotes and how they actually use downvotes are two separate things.

If you don't like it, the solution is simple. You don't argue until you're blue in the face to get people to change. You remove downvotes.

Downvotes are a bad idea. We should have upvotes only.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

Downvotes are a bad idea. We should have upvotes only.

That doesn't improve anything. I've been on sites with upvotes only and it doesn't lead to more productive discussions.
Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than "you're an idiot" because they cannot just downvote to indicate that. Meanwhile the person giving incorrect information feels bolstered by the 3 upvotes they have received that people agree with them, while ignoring the posts with 30 upvotes pointing out why they are incorrect.

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that.

...they presumably also cannot articulate their disagreement in any more naunced way than that, either.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Okay, so would you rather have them post their disagreement that they cannot articulate in a more nuanced way, or just downvote and not clutter up the feed?

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

I'd rather them think on it and actually articulate a position, but that's a high bar to ask for.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

that's a high bar to ask for.

Right. Removing their downvote button isn't going to cause people to pause and reflect on their positions, so what benefit would it provide to an actual discussion?

If I'm having an actual discussion with someone I disagree with, I'd rather receive a bunch of downvotes from the peanut gallery and keep the messages to people who want to actually discuss, then have the entire peanut gallery flooding the responses with poor quality responses to indicate their disagreement.

Yes, it would be better if people gave more nuanced replies, but let's accept reality and the fact that not everybody is going to do that. Let's also accept that you aren't special and deserving of a long form point by point rebuttal from every single person who disagrees with you.

[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

and become facebook? I'd rather not.

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago

But you can downvote on Facebook. In fact, Facebook is worse because it has a range of emoticons you can use to show your disapproval and/or mockery. So, instead of merely making a number go down, you can actually post a laughing yellow face or a frowny yellow face.

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
1410 points (98.3% liked)

Comic Strips

12583 readers
1288 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS