Asklemmy

That shit goes back way before reddit. It was a problem on digg, on 4chan, somethingawful and other vbulletin forums, Usenet, etc. it will be a problem here and every place that comes after

It’s easier to just agree with the group than do critical thinking. It’s easier to just repost the same stupid tired joke someone else just made than to be clever. etc

The hivemind comes from people caring too much about their votes or karma. Nobody likes seeing their post or comment downvoted to oblivion so they'll play things safe and just post something they know everyone will agree with. I'm not sure you can have a voting system without having some kind of a hivemind.

Isolated communities sharing rigid points of view are a problem, but I think the voting system is to blame. When someone disagrees and downvotes as a consequence, it changes the way that comment is read by the next reader, this will likely generate inertia over the way the message is read in general through time.

I can't explain why I do like to read other people's comments. Most of the time I do not bother to engage in conversations with strangers, but Lemmy has several advantages over Reddit just because it doesn't count or publish people's "karma". It's a blessing that some instances of Lemmy can also hide the voting system altogether, which is the only way I can beat the anxiety of putting my thoughts out there. I think these elements make Reddit more addictive, because a "good" number in your comments and profile confirms your membership to a given community. I believe it also shapes a "correct" way of thinking.

IMO: tribal thinking.

It comes down to "they do not think like I want them to or they won't agree with me, so I will downvote posts."

Controversial topics are even more downvoting just to downvote.

The self-built echo chambers are already constructed; self-censorship and anything outside of their views and sources are dismissed, labeled, and smeared so as to not think about the information being shared.

It happens everywhere; the status quo is welcomed, while anything outside of it will seem controversial or extreme.

Unfortunately I think people downvoting things they disagree with is kind of inevitable. People are notoriously combative online, and if they're given an option to drown someone out, they're going to abuse it. And that makes it even easier for any sort of hivemind to kick in.

I personally don't know a better system, but it's not perfect.

I have a conspiracy theory take on it; I think Reddit is run by fascist admins trying to push a fascist ideology and that's why it's so toxic. I think techbros that run corporate social media platforms are all fash.

We need proper platforms for discussion. Reddit isn't such a platform.

The reddit mechanic of using upvotes and using a sorting function optimized for engagement leads to unfavorable second order mechanics.

I'm not gonna share my thoughts on how to fix this. There are certainly experts out there who know more than me about game theory and rhetoric.

I suspect a lack of critical thinking. Respond first, ask questions later or not at all.

It's friendliness of the community and willingness to treat randos with respect. Responses here seem to fit a general pattern of "I agree and...", or "you're wrong and stupid".

I generally have a better experience on Reddit. I'm less likely to get responses, but I get fewer downvotes there and the responses are usually nicer.

All the factors. I think this is more likely not a discrete case

“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

— Agent K, Men In Black