I 'upvote' more or less all posts I interact with (sometimes I forget to vote). I feel like we should bring back open dialogues and heavily dissuade people from simply disregarding someone's entire belief system or ideals based on 200 characters of text (an example).
Think about one person in your life who you first thought was a complete asshole and once you got to know them they were pretty cool, maybe you became best friends with them. The point is, judging a person based on a minute snippet in time is a fool's errand, and your own state of mind contributes a lot to your own judgement of people. Your next thought might be, well they have a history of x, y AND z, so they deserve every bit of judgement coming their way! I would ask you, why? Are you not simply fueling further hatred, vitriol and division? So instead of stopping for a moment and thinking about the world from someone else's perspective, you'd rather just spit out some more hatred and move on like that person doesn't exist?
I would love to see some solution to the shitty state of the Internet. I only say Internet because for the most part this doesn't happen in real life in my experience. I think it has to do with consequences and social sigma and so on. I reckon it would be pretty awesome if there was something like the following:
- all upvotes are free range, people can give out upvotes like they were candy
- downvotes come at a "cost", whereby if you want to downvote someone you have to reply directly to them with some justification, say minimum number of characters, words, etc.
In an ideal world, and setup, this would help raise positivity in the world and have people at the very least have a second thought before being negative.
Yes I understand there would be flaws, I've worked with and used computers for a long time, I know. I chose not to delve deep into those as I feel that would defeat the purpose of the message I'm trying to convey. And, you know, lead by example.
What do ya'll think? Any suggestions to boost positivity in the world, I'm all ears, smash them and any other thoughts in the comments.
downvotes come at a “cost”, whereby if you want to downvote someone you have to reply directly to them with some justification, say minimum number of characters, words, etc.
I think it's the complete opposite. Platforms with downvotes tend to be less toxic because you don't have to reply to insane people to tell them they're wrong, whereas platforms like Twitter get really toxic because you only see the likes, so people tend to get into fights and "ratio" them which actually increases the attention they get and spreads their message to other people.
In general, platforms without upvotes/downvotes tend to be the most toxic imo. Platforms like old-school forums and 4chan are a complete mess because low-effort troll content is as loud as high effort thoughtful ones. It takes one person to de-rail a conversation and get people to fight about something else, but with downvotes included you just lower their visibility. It's basically crowdsourced moderation, and it works relatively well.
As for ways to reduce toxicity, shrug. Moderation is the only thing that really stops it but if you moderate too much then you'll be called out for censoring people too much, and telling them not to get mad is just not going to happen.
My idea for less toxicity is having better filtering options for things people want to see. Upon joining a platform it would give easy options to filter out communities that are political or controversial. That's what I'm doing on Lemmy, I'm here for entertainment, not arguing.
Haha I think 4chan is a completely different beast. I'm seeing quite differing opinions on the thread, which is cool. It's enlightening to see how people think about issues like this. I can see how both sides hold merit. Though in a way I disagree on simply telling people they're wrong. I feel you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. In my experience, it's much more effective to ask people questions and maybe they begin to see, or not, it's out of my control at that point.
Every single time someone makes a post with this opinion, they're either a Nazi or a Nazi apologist. They don't want discourse, they just don't like it when people tell them to shut up. It makes it hard to take their arguments seriously because I know they're just excuses.
Lo and behold, you have a downvoted comment in your recent history where you argue Nazis should be allowed a safe space to talk in. The pattern continues.
Criticism is a part of public discourse as much as approval is. People who allow positive responses freely but put walls in the way of criticism tend to be the ones trying to silence all forms of criticism. They want a positive feedback loop so they can pretend people agree with them. Some people need to be told to shut up quickly and decisively.
And comments like yours are exactly why I want open discourse. You've risen in the comment ranks with misleading information. And even if what you said were true verbatim, how does your argument solve anything? Do you think that suppressing someone's right to think or express themselves will make them "see the light" like in some movie? Think about it from another person's angle. If someone you disagree with tries to silence you, I'm sure you would not be okay with that, right? If they said you're not allowed to have a safe space because your ideas are somehow dangerous from their point of view. They could use the same argument your using, demean your viewpoints by name-calling. In their mind, their opinion is the correct one, much the same as you're feeling. Where does it end? These are all fairly common arguments to silence people and where has it gotten us? Think of the children, this group of people are dangerous they're not allowed a voice. So you're free to speak, just please don't cross the line into defamation or anything illegal. I find it troubling that the first thing you did was go searching in my comment history, instead of simply addressing my post on its merit, which is something we all should try and do. I don't care what you believe politically or whatever, I'm here for discussion and advocate free speech, and to do that there are times when you will defend peoples' right to speak you don't necessarily agree with, but there's more to it than this petty arguing, and that's what I'm trying to get at. To sum up, you're essentially telling me to shut up through the side of your mouth, as is your right to do so in a free world, but I implore you to critically evaluate your comment. Honestly I'm not 100% sure what your point was, you're stating criticism is part of public discourse, I agree, I don't advocate otherwise. This implies that people should be free to speak, but also to be criticised, yes, again, I agree. Then you speak about walls to criticism, not sure where you got that from. A downvote is not criticism, it's a mechanism by which to control visibility of someone's post or comment. My argument is that people should be held to account for those downvotes, which would mean they would be criticised, so again we circle back to the criticism, which I've already agreed with you on. I hope you allow yourself to let go of whatever hatred you have in your heart, and I wish you a good day or night wherever you are.
I don’t care what you believe politically or whatever, I’m here for discussion and advocate free speech, and to do that there are times when you will defend peoples’ right to speak you don’t necessarily agree with, but there’s more to it than this petty arguing, and that’s what I’m trying to get at.
That's not what you're going to get.
The ideas of the market of place of ideas and free speech were about deliberation, joint decision making about what to do about issues as they arose. They weren't valuable in and of themselves, but as a means to the least worst (ideally, the most agreed upon) end.
Of course, abstracting them from their teleology made them valuable in and of themselves. But that abstraction leads to petty arguments. Speech for the sake of speech is empty rhetoric, of which there is so. fucking. much. Political polarization that employs Manichean Us vs Them rhetoric is basically all empty bullshit. And a focus on free speech as* free speech only*, and not an integral part of process of deliberation, reinforces is as the rhetoric of bullshit. Petty arguments abound because arguments can be had about absolutely nothing at all.
Think about it from another person’s angle. If someone you disagree with tries to silence you, I’m sure you would not be okay with that, right? If they said you’re not allowed to have a safe space because your ideas are somehow dangerous from their point of view. They could use the same argument your using, demean your viewpoints by name-calling. In their mind, their opinion is the correct one, much the same as you’re feeling. **Where does it end? **
It ends when we realize that we have shit to do and it needs to get done.
The effectiveness of arguments like "They're coming for your gas stoves!" is rooted in absolute, totalizing bullshit. The "threat" of "limiting" your "freedom" of house appliances is presented as dire and urgent and personal, conflating regulation designed to limit the adverse of house appliances on climate change with an apocalypse of democracy. That last bit is what I mean by it being totalizing, it's existential. Meanwhile, while gas stove lovers the country over engage in bullshit politics, climate change has made 2023 the hottest year since global records began.
That's my solution anyway: focus on institutionalizing a method of getting shit done. Maybe get rid of downvotes and upvotes altogether and make people post emojis to show they're dis/approval. Make people work to engage in discourse.
There was no misleading information. There was no name-calling. It's weird you think there was.
If you're allowed to say "Nazis are allowed a space to hang out", I'm allowed to say "shut the fuck up". If you're allowed to say "yeah, I agree with this" by upvoting, I'm allowed to say "this is a terrible idea" by downvoting. If you don't have to give an explanation for why you support something, you shouldn't have to give an explanation for why you oppose something.
I'm telling you to shut up from the front of my mouth. You are not the first person to put forward this argument, and you're not the first person to do it shortly after being downvoted for defending Nazis. You deliberately want a double standard that limits criticism and it was a pretty easy guess, proven right, that you had recently been justifiably criticised.
Nazis are allowed a space to hang out
I said people you disagree with. I also stated I don't understand what is meant by "Nazis", I feel you're projecting an awful lot. The word Nazi doesn't even mean anything anymore. Maybe it means something to you personally, but what is in your mind has nothing to do with me. It's funny going into what I guess is quite an "echo chamber" and get accused and name-called and told to shut up. For what, exactly? So you consider yourself a tolerant person? If you are unable to tolerate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the exact same thoughts as yourself then I suspect the answer is no. Why don't you try basing arguments off actual merit, rather than leaping to your hail Mary Nazi shut down line. If you open your mind a little bit, I mean really, actually open it up to everything, I'm sure you'll find your anger start to subside. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, and again, I wish you all the best.
This is why hexbear disabled downvotes, because it requires the would-be downvoter to engage
I think a bigger issue is the acceptance of logical falicies leading to arguments that are nothing more than insult wars.
I can think of several instances but one that comes to the top was a long well reasoned argument for FM on phones. The writer put a great deal of effort into it then ended it with "do you know how stupid you sound [for taking the other position]." I made the mistake of pointing this out and was met with downvotes and told it was a very reddit thing to say.
I would love to see a platform where fallacious arguments were excluded until resubmitted or at least flagged. They do not encourage reasoned discourse.
Nobody likes to be made to feel stupid. A person without knowledge isn't stupid on the face of it, they're just a person without knowledge. I think the moment you start insulting someone the argument or whatever is already over at that point. At that point it's not a discussion it's the beginning of a mud slinging match.
Most posts I come across on lemmy/reddit, I do not vote on at all. I upvote when it is the same thing I was going to say, or when it is extraordinarily insightful or otherwise something more people need to see. I downvote when it is plainly objectively wrong or doesn't add to the discussion at all. The vast majority of posts and comments are neither of those. For example, I haven't voted on anything in this thread.
I liked the old structure of phpBB-style message boards where posts were just sorted chronologically and if there was a voting system, it didn't affect sorting. I found those a lot more engaging and they facilitate actual back-and-forth debate rather than naturally turning into one-sided circlejerks. I am not sure they can scale to current numbers of Internet users though; we would have to test in practice how to make that structure work nowadays.
Stack Exchange already has a system where if you downvote, you lose one reputation point, a small deterrent against downvoting.
If the problem is people upvoting and downvoting in vain, I'm surprised nobody has suggested a system only allowing people to make ten a day or something.
Either way, I can see right through the annoyance.
Yes.
My main gripe with Reddit was the voting system. I used it for several years but once my accounts got into the thousands of karma, I just started over again. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but worked for me. One of these accounts was only allowed to upvote, it was nice. First time I noticed the anxiety that the voting system caused on me, I went to askreddit and ask if there was a way to deactivate it, server side or client side. LOL, of course not.
Came to Lemmy: same problem. I used to browse Lemmy with Liftoff, but it doesn't hide the voting system. Recently tried Voyager, turns out it can hide the voting system. Now I feel immune to karens, white knights, bots, trolls and gatekeepers. It doesn't matter how unpopular my opinion is, I don't care if people doesn't agree, it shouldn't matter as long as my views are thoughtful and honest. I put my thoughts out there expecting other's may change mines, but I don't like being downvoted to hell with no discourse inbetween.
EDIT: TIL, in this thread that you can deactivate the vote system in your instance profile. Thanks.
I think your comment is the best take I've read so far. I agree wholeheartedly. As soon as I read it I thought of when I used to play WoW. Many alts I created similar to this. Having a fresh character, but something new without all the complications that came with being a higher level, more useless "responsibilities" with no real pay off. Because in the end it was still just a game. You may not fully see the connection, just know I understand where you're coming from in my own way. Thanks for sharing.
I think that human nature is not meant to be universally shared in all its communities and that indeed there will always be the desire to have divisions, this to bind more with single individuals who become then family or friends. Being friends of all, but also only friendly, is a counter-evolutionary fantasy. The Internet is inadequate for long-range relationships, this is evident to all those who frequent large virtual communities. I sugget (even to myself) to press x more often.
