Asklemmy

49361 readers

1046 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Should downvotes require a summary textfield? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

across a variety of modern up/down vote based platforms, some make it a personal mission to avoid downvoting (the only real exceptions when someone is being utterly objectionable, ie. ridiculously racist/sexist etc or blatant spamming ^(1)^

in general, it is almost always better to have a respectful discussion than mindlessly downvoting and moving on. if two parties can meet for respectful discussion the outcome is almost always superior to the text-book divisiveness of a downvote war etc ^(2)^.

in a great many cases people usually find they don't disagree as much as previously thought, have their mind opened to a valuable new perspective, or at worst accept to disagree respectfully. definitely a better outcome.

yes it is time consuming, but don't we all generally want quality over quantity?

^(2)^ the original idea of a self-moderating community through up/down votes is a good idea, yet appears to have been hijacked by the modern social-media-type weaponised web, which is being turned against humanity to divide and polarize us against eachother. and is particularly suspectible to bot manipulation.

^(1)^ which can have eg. their own flags

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

That would have the unfortunate side effect of increasing negativity, as people are pushed to actually voice it instead of giving a harmless downvote. And when you consider the extra effort required, the downvote itself essentially becomes meaningless, turning this into a mechanism of "if you don't like it, make sure to let everyone know why, or shut up" which I don't think is very helpful.

That said, maybe something like adding an extra step where you choose a reason for the downvote from a list like "spammy, offensive, rude/toxic, annoying, misleading/innacurate" etc. or write your own, and those could be visible to moderators (anonymously) as a sort of micro-report. Would dissuade people from mindlessly downvoting and help improve moderation in the process.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 years ago

Also I often think people easily tend to downvote things just because they disagre, even though it might be constructive content. I have at least caught myself doing that before.

load more comments (1 replies)