I have seen a few instances remove downvoting, and they seem to run more smoothly. They tend to be more civil.
That’s one of the cases that we need to remember that co-occurrence does not necessarily imply causation. It’s perfectly possible, for example, that the removal of downvotes doesn’t make those instances more civil - but instead that admins seeking more civility try a bunch of stuff out, alongside the removal of downvotes, and something else makes the users in those instances more civil.
To sort this out we’d need some sort of A/B testing.
(Note: this doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong, it’s more like “do we [people in general] know it? I don’t think that we do.”
Instead of all votes being equal I’d like to see voting weighted according to the votes you have issued a person in the past. Reflecting your respect/disrespect for that person.
Thus, if person X is somebody that you have upvoted in the past, then when they vote on person Y, be they up or down votes, then those votes on Y will count for more. And if you downvoted X then, when they vote on Y, those votes on Y will count for less.
And those votes would propagate. IE your “opinion” of X would weight X’s votes. And it would also weight the votes of those whom X votes on.
This would provide a pretty smart map of the value of the persons who you are talking to here. And then you filter or whatever.
There are some people who just downvote to downvote. They add no value but just want to be jerks.
I’ve heard that called the Chinese system. Anything that catches my attention gets downvoted. Any nail that sticks up gets hammered down. It’s genetic or something.
If the fediverse wants to survive, it has to spawn conversation. Otherwise, the numbers will never grow, and eventually, they will fizzle out. Echo chambers don’t last since people get bored easily when you can just macro the conversations.
Reddit and Twitter work on the model of causing outrage with downvotes to spawn people to the site to generate ad revenue. They spend a lot of time and effort allowing the outrage. That is how they generate revenue. Yet, it creates a very toxic environment and one that shouldn’t be duplicated.
Reddit likes the conversational equivalent of a first person shooter. As opposed to a polite tea party. Maybe we just need to separate the two. But every FPS fan wants to shoot up the tea party so it’s gotta be a pretty rigorous separation.
Let’s hear them.
I have seen a few instances remove downvoting, and they seem to run more smoothly. They tend to be more civil.
That’s one of the cases that we need to remember that co-occurrence does not necessarily imply causation. It’s perfectly possible, for example, that the removal of downvotes doesn’t make those instances more civil - but instead that admins seeking more civility try a bunch of stuff out, alongside the removal of downvotes, and something else makes the users in those instances more civil.
To sort this out we’d need some sort of A/B testing.
(Note: this doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong, it’s more like “do we [people in general] know it? I don’t think that we do.”
In all fairness, it doesn’t mean I am right either and that is a fair criticism.
Here’s one of my ideas.
Instead of all votes being equal I’d like to see voting weighted according to the votes you have issued a person in the past. Reflecting your respect/disrespect for that person.
Thus, if person X is somebody that you have upvoted in the past, then when they vote on person Y, be they up or down votes, then those votes on Y will count for more. And if you downvoted X then, when they vote on Y, those votes on Y will count for less.
And those votes would propagate. IE your “opinion” of X would weight X’s votes. And it would also weight the votes of those whom X votes on.
This would provide a pretty smart map of the value of the persons who you are talking to here. And then you filter or whatever.
I actually like that. It would also help with sockpuppets since, over time they would lose their value.
There are some people who just downvote to downvote. They add no value but just want to be jerks.
I’ve heard that called the Chinese system. Anything that catches my attention gets downvoted. Any nail that sticks up gets hammered down. It’s genetic or something.
If the fediverse wants to survive, it has to spawn conversation. Otherwise, the numbers will never grow, and eventually, they will fizzle out. Echo chambers don’t last since people get bored easily when you can just macro the conversations.
Reddit and Twitter work on the model of causing outrage with downvotes to spawn people to the site to generate ad revenue. They spend a lot of time and effort allowing the outrage. That is how they generate revenue. Yet, it creates a very toxic environment and one that shouldn’t be duplicated.
Reddit likes the conversational equivalent of a first person shooter. As opposed to a polite tea party. Maybe we just need to separate the two. But every FPS fan wants to shoot up the tea party so it’s gotta be a pretty rigorous separation.
I think that is a very good analogy.