• adderaline
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    imma push back against that just a little bit. the shape of ui elements, what sort of interactions a platform allows a person to make, are kinda arbitrary, and putting deliberate thought into how they are laid out is important. in real life social interactions, there is functionally no analogue for a like or dislike button. there are fully cogent arguments for not including “the power of users to be negative” that don’t rely on suppression of speech or whatever, because that power is kinda exclusive to online platforms to begin with, and can allow larger groups to suppress the visibility of people they don’t like. “being negative” in a social context is a tricky idea to pin down, and there are a lot of real life social contexts where “being negative” would be seen as anti-social.

    in any case, a downvote is sorta equivalent to shouting somebody down, or interrupting somebody who’s talking. depending on how its implemented, it might actually be a pretty potent tool as suppressing discussion. in certain contexts it might be useful, but any utility it provides is necessarily less than articulating why you disagree with somebody with a comment.

    • DarkMatterStyx
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I consider the down vote the equivalent of rolling my eyes when listening to an idiot ramble on. However, I can see your point as well.

    • RandoCalrandian
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wholeheartedly disagree

      Both with what a downvote means (closer to the other commenter) and to the importance of UI elements

      none of it is arbitrary

      Those “arbitrary” elements are very intentional

      It’s intentional how many clicks it takes you to post, to agree, to disagree, to move on, etc.

      It’s intentional that infinite scrolling takes no effort and happens automatically, while diving deeper into the conversation takes effort

      All of those are decisions and as soon as those decisions are motivated more by money than by benefiting the person using it, it becomes cancerous to the values of free speech and open expression.