I’m very curious about the reasoning different people use when deciding to downvote a post or comment. Often, when something gets “heavily” downvoted, the OP will ask some variation of “why the downvotes?”. This is sometimes answered with sincere criticism, but sometimes is received even more poorly than the original offending post.
Do you downvote people who ask “why the downvotes?”? What informs the decision?
Imagine caring so much about internet points lmao
I sometimes wish I could turn it off lol. I love games, and the way that social media gets gamified with upvotes and downvotes (and the way that humans respond to those game elements, or make up their own rules around those game elements) is endlessly fascinating to me. I don’t know if I’ll ever get over how fuckin weird the internet is.
This is why old internet forums had higher quality discussions and tighter communities than anything on reddit.
Cuz it used to be that the only way to register disagreement, was to voice your opinion. Granted back then you could just call OP a fag and that was acceptable.
I think there are pros and cons. I like being able to sort by Hot or Top to see what everyone else is thinking about, but with comments I like to sort by Old and just see how the conversation unfolds in time.
Old forums were chronological by default.
if it’s an obvious troll i just move on or downvote, if it seems like someone’s genuinely curious why they get downvoted i reply.
Imo this automatic disapproval of asking for clarification is toxic and promotes circlejerks. If you got something to say to me, say it, but I’m not going to bend over backwards trying to guess what I’d have to do to appease internet strangers. That’s especially true of communities where terrible takes get massively upvoted, like that plus they won’t even voice their problem, at some point you gotta write those types off.
I treat it like I used to do Reddit.
I don’t care. I don’t look.
My thoughts and opinions are mine a d I don’t care enought about how many upvotes and downvotes they get to even look.
I have anxiety, so I change settings (in Thunder) so they’re hidden.
I don’t think I would have had the self-awareness to turn them off myself, but since I have started using blahaj.zone (which disables downvotes by default) I have been very pleasantly surprised at what a difference it makes. It makes social media a lot less stressful and more fun to use, with AFAICT no significant downsides. It’s very nice.
I’ve had a few interactions where it turned out I just worded my comment poorly to the point where it seemed like I was saying completely different. Asking about it cleared that up.
On Lemmy, even more so than Reddit, the hive mind is quick to downvote people who have different opinions.
Try saying that you dislike Linux.
Or that you like cars.
Or try talking about things like SpaceX or Starlink without first having a sentence or two about how much of a POS Musk is.
Try saying ANYTHING about AI that isn’t 100% opposed to it, no matter the use case.
It’s like a good portion of Lemmy’s userbase has a fucking conniption any time they see an opinion they don’t entirely agree with infiltrating their perceived echo chamber.
On Lemmy, even more so than Reddit, the hive mind is quick to downvote people who have different opinions.
I don’t think that’s true at all. I’d also argue Lemmy/Piefed is structurally more resistant to it on the grounds of upvotes/downvotes not being private.
I got a comment that was kinda sorta in support of ai from a few days ago that got upvoted a few times. But the hive mind is wild here. I will occasionally accidentally sic 'em on someone, and if I notice it I’ll upvote them to try and fight it.
The fediverse has an extremely bad case of the GroupThink.
No, you don’t see. They are all very smart geniuses who know better than you. You ignorant fool!
They are just trying to ENLIGHTEN you to the error of your ways!
ID politics infests this place. Under ID politics logic, there is the oppressor, and the oppressed. The oppressed can only do good, and you can only be good if you are on their side. Otherwise, you are evil. It’s an absolutist way of thinking, and most of the users here fall into the trap of thinking this way about everything.
They have simple extended it from politics to lifestyles, to hobbies.
I have been repeatedly harassed and insulted for being a console gamer. God forbid you own a playstation/nintendo and want to play games sitting on your comfy couch. What a ignorant immoral bigoted fool I am! How can I live without the GLORY of Linux gaming at 240fps!!!
I’ve seen in IRL so much now too. It’s not just lemmy. This type of thinking is rampant everywhere now, because it does so well on social media. It’s so pathetic and it’s totally toxic. And even if you are ‘on their side’ they turn it into a pissing contest of your purity or something. Everything is also moralized to the point of absurdity.
I have been repeatedly harassed and insulted for being a console gamer
stay strong friend. thoughts n prayers
In all fairness though, those are reasons to down vote
You down vote if you disagree or dislike a comment
You’re on a very progressive place where people prefer products and policies that are good for everyone, not good for a few and shit for everyone else
Windows is good for a very few executives and it’s a shit show for the rest of the world. Has been like that for 40 years already, bit yay that people are finally catching on to this
Linux is the antithesis of windows. It’s from everyone for everyone and it’s fucking awesome. I can do miracles with a computer with Linux 30 minutes after I bought a computer and started installing it. I can’t even get windows installed without having to dive into documentation, bios and who knows what other shit
Same for rockets. NASA yay! SpaceX got 3 billion dollars to take us to the moon and they took that tax payer money, gave Elmo a huge bonus and never even managed to arrive into a stable low watch orbit. Musk, being the pathological liar that he is about fuuuuuucking everything, just keeps on lying and loads of people lap it up because … Reasons?
Cars? You mean those things that replaced human beings in cities in the Americas? Especially in the US where without a car you can’t even have a job anymore? Where cars kill hundreds of people per day, needlessly, because of badly designed infrastructure and rules that favor cars over anything else? Those things that spew pollution, CO2, plastic particles everywhere and is mostly used for trips where a bicycle would be 5 times faster?
And you wonder why posts that don’t rile against these things get down voted?
It’s like asking why turds in your bed get down voted so much. One would think “well doh!”
There are very good reasons for these down votes
holds up a mirror
You down vote if you disagree or dislike a comment
I’ve always known that a lot of people used it this way, but I thought most people were on the same page that that’s a misuse of the feature. I’m sad to see that I was wrong.
The purpose of downvoting (or voting in general) on any platform that offers it is for you to indicate that a post doesn’t contribute to the discussion. It’s a soft knob for you to say others won’t find it worth reading. If you believe that use inherently aligns with indicating what you already believe then that’s what makes people see Lemmy (and Reddit) as elitist and hive-mindy, because that’s elitist and hive-mindy.
I think it’s simpler than that. By default, Lemmy/piefed/etc. orders comments by top using upvotes and downvotes.
So if you want something to move up and be more visible you upvote it. If you want something to move down and be less visible, you downvote it.
The difference between likes/dislikes is that you don’t need to like something or dislike something to up/down vote it. You might like something but think it doesn’t contribute or is in the wrong comm or even just that the other comments should be higher up than it. There doesn’t need to be an assumption of negative judgement (although often there is anyway), they’re tools for arranging comment/post order.
deleted by creator
Yes.
You don’t reach people who downvote you by editing after the fact and it just seems like you are butthurt.
When there is a dog pile you move on. Maybe people didn’t get your phrasing or you didn’t do enough to be understood. Or you spat an uncomfortable truth.
Also @ing people who downvote you is really rude. Don’t do that unless it is a pattern for them to downvote your content or they are systematically downvoting e.g. queer content.
Is there a way to even know who downvoted? I’ve always thought it was an assumption
Yeah. Gotta know for federation reasons.
It sounds like you’d have to go out of your way to get that info though. Which is a tad pathetic, no?
Depends. If your xom gets a constant number if downvotes suspicion is in orders.
Yep, you can check on something like lemvotes and it says who voted which way. It’s open information but most clients don’t show it I think.
I’m not even aware of when I’ve been downvoted, it doesn’t matter
It’s actually since I created this account that I really started thinking about the role of downvoting in social media. I honestly do not miss it at all, I think turning them off makes the internet better. I recognize this is not true for everyone, and I think people who find downvotes useful deserve to have useful tools. But I do like that I have the option of not thinking about them.
Yeah, having my account on blahaj has been great not seeing downvotes and not being able to. It honestly has made me have discourse more often with others. It would be nice if people used the upvote/downvote system for what its actual purpose is but unfortunately it is just used to express being mad at the person pretty often over a petty disagreement. I’m fully guilty of it myself so just having the option gone has been only beneficial for my needs
The difference between the rules for downvotes and how they’re actually used by users is one of the things that brought this to mind. Some forums specifically forbid complaining about downvotes, but even in fora where such complaints aren’t specifically against the rules, they’re still generally frowned upon, and that is expressed in downvotes. It’s sort of like community rule enforcement: if enough people think a rule should be followed, they’ll make their opinion known, even if it’s not one of the written rules.
why not turn off voting altogether?
oh right, because that would take away the incentive for people to use it…
Downvotes storms happens for unknown reasons on Lemmy.
I automatically downvote anyone complaining about downvotes. I’m not going to change. Either stand your ground and accept your downvotes with dignity or introspect and see if you can improve your interactions.
I’ve never understood this position. There’s definitely people who try to use it rhetorically to get others to engage with their trolling; but “automatic” implies that you’re not concerned with that. Do you not think it’s possible for someone to make a comment in poor taste without knowing what makes it poor taste? Now that I’m thinking about it, that feels like one of the defining traits of autism; I think it’s healthier to explain something “obvious” to someone like that than to effectively say “fuck you for even asking”.
This is very true and I often find myself asking for clarification on comments I don’t understand why they get downvoted. Usually I manage to give enough context as to why I’m so ignorant that I need to ask the question, and most times I don’t get downvoted down along with the parent comment.
But the person you replied to said they downvote people who complain, not ask why their comment is downvoted.
There is a fine line between complaining and asking for an explanation though so I see your point and your reasoning but I felt like I had to make this distinction too.
Yeah great chance to downvote that person and not explain why lol. What a weird attitude. It’s the most antisocial, rude, guaranteed way to never change someone’s mind ever.
yup, such a reddit take to auto-downvote without even providing any information or discussion, one that I actively try to push back against.
see if you can improve your interactions
Are you sure it improves interaction ?
- This post is the proof that it don’t improve interaction. From my experience, they don’t understand. It didn’t improve their understanding nor invited them to introspect themselve.
- I don’t think that everyone has the same sensibility. That also tell if users are empathic or unkind.
- You asume downvoter are always right and we should accept the result with dignity. What if we complained about downvote because we told people that our world isn’t flat but round ?
also people paint “complain about downvotes” with a broad brush, wondering why you were downvoted or discussing the reasoning, can easily be painted as “complaining” especially from someone who says they “automatically downvote” (not a lot of nuance in an automatic decision).
Yeah, I usually downvote anyone complaining about downvotes, even if I agree with their general point.
If you get a lot of down votes, legitimately can’t figure out why, and want to understand then it’s reasonable to ask.
If you get 3-4 down votes and ask then you need to get offline. I’ve seen people here ask after two down votes, at which point they deserve to be piled on.
Completely depends on the comment itself. If its someone just being a cunt and then asking “why the downvotes?! We don’t have freedom of speech?!” or something moronic like that, I downvote and then block them.
But if its someone that I think were misunderstood, brigaded, or perhaps just piled on, like used to happen in reddit, I ask them to clarify what they meant. Or if I think they were brigaded or piled on, I explain to them that it sometimes happens and not to care about it too much.
Defending a comment on the basis of free speech is the last bastion of the intellectually bankrupt. If your best defense could just as easily be used to justify saying a string of random words, then what you’re saying carries exactly the same weight as nonsense. I would downvote that.
It’s not rude so much as that it comes off as pathetic.
I’m going to enjoy this one a bit:
Why the downvotes? I didn’t say that it is pathetic to ask why you’ve been downvoted. I said only that it gathers downvotes because it comes across as pathetic.
I’ll take a stab at answering even though I am not one of the downvoters (I actually cannot see the downvotes so I’ll take your word that they’re there).
First, I struggle to see the relevant difference between “is pathetic” and “coming across as pathetic”. I’ll try to make an analogy: I think downvoting as it currently functions (at least for lemmy/piefed) is a summary judgement that says “this content is not worth my attention, nor is it worth everyone else’s attention.” I think your distinction tries to differentiate between those two things, i.e. “comes across as pathetic” implies “this is not worth my attention” while “is pathetic” implies “not worth anyone’s attention”, and the simple mechanism of downvoting is not nuanced enough for that distinction. I think the distaste for saying “asking about downvotes comes across as pathetic” stems from a disagreement about whether such questions are worth anyone’s attention, not merely your own.
Second, I think there’s an element of gamification to upvotes and downvotes that leads people to seek upvotes and avoid downvotes to the detriment of… what I’ll call for lack of a better term “actual conversation”. I think this is worse on platforms like Reddit where one’s global post and comment karma is easily accessible. We humans have an ingrained preference for “numbers going up” games that Reddit takes advantage of to boost its interaction metrics (and therefore its ad sales). This gamification leads to suspicion among users about the true motives behind inquiries about downvotes. If maximizing upvotes is the game we’re all playing, then demanding a clarification for downvotes might be taken as a cynical attempt to save points rather than actually engaging with a controversial idea, and I think that behavior is broadly agreed to be pathetic. But that cynical pointsmaxxing behavior often looks a lot like someone who is trying to engage with a controversial idea, indeed I think the whole concept of “concern trolling” relies on exploiting that ambiguity. I think the automatic assignment of any questioning of downvotes to “pathetic” (either seeming or in fact) excludes the possibility that the asker is making a good-faith attempt to learn why their post was received so negatively by the community.
Trying to understand why people might disagree with you is pathetic???
no, it’s pathetic to worry about points on the internet.
