this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
147 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
7498 readers
4 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Having only upvotes is still a bit of an echo chamber, but it's moreso affected by how many people have seen the post (and in a related fashion, how early a comment was made in a thread), not whether people agree with the post. As someone mentioned, youtube's dislike scenario is a good example of this in the real world. Downranking harmful/unhelpful videos is important for users on youtube, and it's still useful on a platform like this. Without downvotes, if I came across a comment with 12 upvotes, I would have to mentally weigh how many people I think saw that post, and how many thought it was bad information.
I'll note that I fully agree with almost all the points in favor of having no downvotes, but I think the utility of downvotes is just more important in my opinion.
Right there is inherent inertial momentum with upvotes.
I'm still on the fence, because understandably the potential (and actual) for abuse makes downvotes very unproductive as a feature, but there are also situations where they are very powerful.
It takes significantly more effort to refute a wrong position than it takes to make it. Downvotes serve as an explicit balancing point against that in ways that a well written response does not. Additionally, nested comments usually get less upvotes than their parent comments.
It is what it is I guess.
Does that really balance it out, though? A downvote or pile of downvotes won't persuade the person who made the bad argument that they're wrong, nor will it persuade any lurkers. The bad argument can stand without an explicit refutation, or without the person who made it even knowing why they were downvoted (always a frustrating experience).
Here, you can still see which argument is the most popular, because you get the initial argument A, then because there are no downvotes we're more likely to get a counter argument B, and then you can see easily which of the two has more upvotes.
And if people keep talking, there be more nuance this way, I think. It's not limited to a binary option of bad vs good, and you can maybe more "I agree with x, or think you might have a point about y, but I disagree with z because..." Vs someone with a nuance opinion instead just deciding if they think it's overall more bad or more good and voting in a way that erases the nuance.
Edit: also, people arguing in bad faith because bigotry can just be reported and booted altogether