When I first found out it was an interesting concept that I was pretty neutral on but the more I engage/lurk with the community the more I enjoy it.
I generally don’t post/comment much on Reddit because I tend to be extremely sincere and that’s not always well received. Usually I don’t get much hate, but what I do get is a lot of non-interaction mixed with downvotes. And it’s just really discouraging when I’m just trying to share my thoughts.
But having no downvotes here is so nice because I’m not afraid that I’m going to get silenced into oblivion. Either people will actually engage with me (and maybe disagree, but in a meaningful way), or they’ll move on and not randomly share their disdain via downvoting.
It’s such a small change but makes a big difference. I bet a lot of people feel the same as me - it’s more comfortable to engage here.
Agree entirely. Down voting encourages a hive mind mentality which builds echo chambers and is whats wrong with most social media platforms.
Did we already forgot about YouTube that literally mask shitty videos because of the no downvote counter? Or Facebook that can spread fake news and shit because of it? Downvotes can be bad but imo only upvotes can be worse.
This is true too. I can only hope disinformation and harmful content can be reported to moderators that will take action to remove it.
If people are spreading conspiracy theories or harmful content, we do remove it of course. I think the example of Facebook is exactly where moderation is important. Not where downvotes are important.
Because to put it simply, conspiracy theories and harmful content usually get posted in echo chambers where people will agree anyways so a downvote does nothing to solve the problem imo.
Reddit also spreads fake news and shit, though. The communities you participate in determine whether you see it, to a degree, but nonetheless. Like, when Bernie was running for Pres, the Bernie Sanders subreddit had everything that looked good for his chances upvoted, and everything that looked critical of his opponents (including the same accusations of Biden being a pedo that the far right likes to make) upvoted, and comments or posts that were like “… Wait a minute this doesn’t seem to be true” or “this over here isn’t a good sign” or “Bernie isn’t popular with these Black voters for xyz reasons” or whatever would get downvoted to the point people didn’t see it. Voila, echo chamber. I say this as someone that voted for Bernie.
That said, I do wonder if a system that eschewed votes altogether might be better. Like old forums.
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
You nailed it in 2 sentences.