One of the things that sets Lemmy, and the collective fediverse apart from other platforms is its community. Recently, there’s been a large influx of new users (myself included; thus I apologize if this is not the right location for this post). A toxic trait associated with other platforms is the incorrect use of the downvote. Historically, this function was used to hide comments that detracted from the conversation; however, next to no one uses it as intended, and it’s primarily used as a I disagree with you button.
I don’t think we’ll ever change how the downvote is used now - it’s current use is too entrenched. Instead, I suggest that rather than just downvoting and moving on with something you disagree with, that users expand on why they disagree with the post or comment. Not only does this generate more content, but it also can take the conversation into new areas and offer new perspectives that the OP had not considered. You might even actually change a mind or two by doing so, thus bringing people around to see your side of the coin. Commenting (with civility) on stuff you don’t agree with is beneficial on all fronts. It promotes discussion, and it offers new perspectives. It also minimizes the likelihood of echo chambers forming. That last bit is what I’ve come to value here the most. Other sites are just massive echo chambers where there’s a rote response or opinion. This creates a stale environment for users, and deters people from commenting. Why comment, when you know what the answer will be, or that you’ll be jumped on at the first word of disagreement with the entrenched opinion?
But what if I don’t have time to comment to support my downvote? Simple - don’t downvote unless the item you’re downvoting truly detracts from the conversation (as per the functions original intent).
I realize this is a bit of a rant/ramble, but I think by actively putting more effort into our comments and downvotes, we can make lemmy an even richer community than it already is.
Thanks for taking the time to read,
- Shovel
I don’t think that this is the correct way to address this problem. While I agree that downvotes shouldn’t be used indiscriminately, simply urging people to use it in another form isn’t going to do much. If people were better, the world would be better. The problem is that people aren’t better, and so we have the problems at hand.
I don’t know, I think a systemic approach to problems is usually a better way to a solution. Just to give a quick idea, which might be a bad one at that, I think that Lemmy could, by default (with the option to toggle the option), ask the user to give their opinion whenever they downvote. It’s simple and small, but could be the push that people need to actually engage in conversation rather than lazily pressing good and bad buttons. I’m not sure it would work, but I think it’s a step ahead of simply yelling to people “Be better!” and expecting things to change. Just my two cents, though.
Another commentator mentioned that this used to be built into slash dot. Downvoters were given a default list to choose from (with option to expand upon) why they were downvoting.
In the meantime, my shitty little plea to the fediverse is all I got; a mouse fart trying to shift the path of a cultural hurricane
To follow on from the last commenter:
As the creator of a major subreddit, I can say that the collective masses can absolutely not be swayed from whatever the zeitgeist is… ESPECIALLY if the action is secret.
So, with that: since Lemmy is free and open source, I think bringing that discussion and possibly systemic solutions there (GitHub?) Would be the most practical way to affect tangible change.
Part of the solution might be to just accept that behaviour, and instead focous on how to mitigate the practical effects. User downvotes without corresponding comments maybe don’t effect the “net upvottedness”. Maybe sorting options that don’t include downvoting at all. If the concern is how naked downvotes affect visibility, maybe the resolution is in the visibility algorithms themselves.
