Downvotes suck. I get it, they are made up internet points coming from strangers (or bots) that you know nothing about, and you shouldn’t let that get you down. Still, putting in a few minutes of effort to share your opinion and engage with the community just to see a downvote is disheartening.

Based on the patterns of downvotes I see on a post, it seems like there is usually one or two people downvoting everything they wouldn’t personally say themselves. Extrapolating from this, I presume there is a population of users that contribute more downvotes than anything.

Personally, I don’t think the platform should allow any user to spend more time tearing things down than building other things up. Only allowing downvotes after so many upvotes would help stop trolls and could help generate more engagement via upvotes.

Edit:

The upvote/downvote count would be a global count including posts and comments, not a post specific count. This solution does not prevent downvoting, it merely adds friction to those who predominantly leave negative feedback by ensuring their positive feedback elsewhere. Sure, some would go on to upvote unsavory things, but others would attempt to further engage with their interests, and some would simply lurk.

If any good faith user approached the limitation, they would likely be better served by curating their feed.

  • YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If the intention is to create an open, impartial forum for discussion and community interaction, then no such action should be taken.

    If ensuring that users can’t predominantly give negative feedback violates your understanding of the intention, surely the existence of moderators does as well.

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ll just quote from my other comment:

      Censorship is sometimes necessary (the classic example of yelling “fire!” in a theater) but always problematic. It should never be implemented in blanket policies but only in specific cases to drive specific outcomes (not to create a generally more positive atmosphere) - hence moderation and reporting.

      And from just a moment ago:

      [email protected] >The existence of moderators suggests we can’t be trusted to say anything we want.

      [email protected] > The existence of moderators suggests that moderating conversation between humans requires contextual, circumstantial, individual and specific decision-making. That is, it requires human attention on each instance rather than broad conversation-affecting policies.

      • YIj54yALOJxEsY20eU@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fair enough lol sorry for splitting comments, I just wanted to sepererate this from the bog of my other comments. I will address that tomorrow when I’m a little more put together. I appreciate the discussion.