

I think the point of view described in the reddiquette is the most beneficial for good communities:
Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it doesn’t contribute to the community it’s posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.
(Yes the link goes to reddit’s website and I understand people are avoiding it, just keep in mind there was a time before everything went wrong and the reddiquette dates back to the early years)
So I don’t upvote what other people say just because I agree with their opinion, or downvote because I disagree, but rather based on whether they’re contributing to the conversation in a useful way. I frequently upvote people that argue with me, as long as they’re addressing what I wrote in good faith.
This idea goes back further too - back when Digg was the most popular such website, the idea was that you “digg up” things that you think should be more visible (things that you think are worthwhile for other people to see), and “digg down” (bury) things that aren’t.
For example, if I upvote an article about genocide, it’s not because I approve of genocide, but because I think it’s important for other people to see the article.















I find it difficult to see removing down votes as anything other than suppressing dissent.