Because to me, they seem like de facto "Agree and “Disagree” buttons, whether or not it was the intent.
They should be “this is worthy to be seen by many” and “this is not”. Sometimes that also overlaps with my agreement with the post.
This is how I use the vote arrows too.
I think I’ve gotten a little idealistic since moving to lemmy because I definitely used the votes as agree/disagree on Reddit, because it was clear that was what the hivemind decided it was for, who was I to argue.
In the olden days there was ‘reddiquette’ which still existed on smaller, non default subs. You’d downvote poor contributions and up vote good ones
It was literally in the reddiquette that you’re not supposed to use them like that, but in practice, you’re absolutely right and that’s how they’re used.
Yes. That’s how people use it, so that’s what it is. The original intention doesn’t matter.
There are many ways people use them.
The way I use them and I wish everyone did is:
Upvote = I agree with this, this is what I would have posted too if I had seen the comment earlier, this is extraordinarily funny or insightful and I want more people to see it
Downvote = I think this doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the discussion at all, it would have been better if it hadn’t been posted, others shouldn’t have to read it
The vast majority of things doesn’t fall into either of these categories, so I neither upvote nor downvote them; if I merely disagree with something, I write a counterargument but do not downvote.
I think there’s a shorter way to say this.
Upvote means promote. I think this should be seen.
Downvote means demote. I don’t think this should be seen.
Yes, but a lot of people “don’t think this should be seen” simply because they disagree with it, no matter how much of a good-faith on-topic post it is. That was a main point.
Which is what I’m kinda getting at. It’s always going to be up to the individual. Unfortunately there’s no way to force any kind of consensus.
Upvote: I agree at least for the most part.
Downvote: I have problems with the general content, or the source of the content.
No vote: I’m not going to downvote you, but I don’t have to upvote you either.
No vote is the best way to let something just die out. Any sort of engagement would make it higher in the popular “hot” category so no action is the best for “this is shit and no one should see it”.
My upvotes are for posts I like, downvotes I don’t really use except when the content is factually wrong or misleading
I’ll use downvote if the person is overtly racist, homophobic or just mean. Name calling or being just unpleasant. It’s ok to not agree. It’s not ok to dehumanize someone for a different perspective.
Do you mean by seem that people here seem to use them like that, or that they just seem like that to you?
I try to reserve downvotes for people who are actively harming the discussion. Downvoting good comments just because you disagree is pretty shit behaviour, and I guess the same could be said about upvoting bad comments because you agree with the opinion.
I think this is the best answer?
I’ll also suggest that downvotes can be used for something that is actively wrong, as in deliberate, but I think it’s abused for people who may be ignorantly wrong but not maliciously so. Once the downvote train starts sometimes people can’t catch a break even if they make amends. Really does a disservice and disincentivizes to people’s ability to admit being wrong or learn something new.
people who may be ignorantly wrong but not maliciously so.
I think this one is a bit blurry anyway. If the person had every chance to learn, it’s on them.
Yeah, on the internet it’s really hard to tell if someone just doesn’t get it, is trolling, or is maliciously ignorant. Sometimes a quick check of their recent comments can reveal their MO and tell you who they are.
Practically yes, despite the way that they ought to be used.
It’s such a shame. Lemmy should be a place where we can collectively share ideas and debate openly. Comments and posts should only ever be downvoted if they’re off topic, hateful or misleading. However, in reality people get downvoted mostly because someone simply doesn’t like or wholly agree with them.
It’s still better here than reddits awful circlejerks and echo chambers, but not by much and we should be wary of devolving to a state where people are disincentivized to post because they have an idea or opinion that may only be slightly off kilter to the hive mind.
Just to let you know, you posted your reply 3 times. I downvoted the other 2 (consider deleting them).
Yes I noticed, sorry, bad internet connection, I have deleted them now.
dopamine button
It really depends on where you use them.
In some communities I’ll use upvotes as a way to track which posts I’ve seen.
In news communties I always downvote tabloid sources and clickbait headlines, regardless of content.
But when it comes to the comments, it’s mostly an agree/disagree button.
fake activism button
It’s the “I like/don’t like the sound of that button”
It’s supposed to be about relevance and moderation of abusive content, not agreement, but that’s not usually the case.
Interesting to read the comments, I was unaware anyone gave mich if a shit about posts, let alone how others might vote on them. I mean I don’t actually know anyone here.
I do hit the upvote occasioanly if a post was helpfu/usefull… to me. Conditioning is the only real explanation I have for that behaviour though.
Lemmy has a higher NAFO troll bot to human ratio than reddit. The larger communities are moderated by CIA supportive of mainstream disinformation media, as is reddit. Though there is less zionist-supremacist moderation on Lemmy.
Zero anti-war presence on Lemmy for instance is in a way a much stronger groupthink mentality here than on reddit. The exception is there doesn’t seem to be a supreme zionist supremacist mod capable of site ban.
Groupthink happens, to answer your question.
Groupthink happens, to answer your question.
I agree with this guy.
deleted by creator
