This is a general proposal that concerns Lemmy specifically, but also other forum-alike software that uses ActivityPub, such as Piefed.
For me, the original sin of social media is downvoting (rant incoming). Specifically, its rampant misuse as a “Me no like!!” button. Apart from conveying totally uninteresting information (i.e. a subjective binary opinion), downvoting encourages schoolyard social dynamics and discourages heterodox views (and therefore debate). The nearest in-person equivalent (saying “shut up”) is universally considered rude. At scale, the effect of downvoting is to brutalize a community that might otherwise be pleasant and welcoming. I believe this practice is almost always toxic and poisonous. Those who defend it (in good faith, I do not doubt) need to consider the possibility that it has helped to homogenize their communities into people like them (to caricature: insensitive males). Most ordinary people do not participate actively in social media. There’s a reason for that.
No, this is not a popular position here (cf. selection bias) and so it will of course be… downvoted. But it’s how I see it. I like to think that I’ve added some value to the fediverse with my contributions, but if there’s one thing that regularly causes me to consider leaving, it’s this. Going to Beehiv or Blahaj-whatsit is not a solution, because the communities I’m interested in are not there. Hiding downvote scores does not work because… it does not hide the downvoters.
Which gave me an idea. Given that the identity of downvoters is technically public, I propose a new setting: “Auto-block downvoters”. That’s it. Automatically hide comments (or posts, or anything) by users who have downvoted your contributions. Logical, no? They don’t care for what I have to say, and I don’t care for their inane negativity. It’s win-win! Lots of possible variants:
- Hide [ subsequent | all ] comments by users who have downvoted [ a post | a comment | anything ] by you [ in this thread | on this post | in this community | everywhere]
- Hide [etc] by users with an upvote-downvote ratio lower than [ X ]% etc
Such a setting (especially #1) would immeasurably improve my experience of Lemmy. No exaggeration. I like to think it might also serve as a subtle incentive for users to be more generous and tolerant in their behavior towards others, but that is secondary.
You must log in or register to comment.
wouldn’t an option to ‘mute’ rather than ‘block’ people achieve the same outcome? that’s how it works on twitter iirc
Sure, that would work fine. Essentially the same thing as far as I can tell. The point is that it would be fine-tunable and automatic, neither of which the current block is.
Dont you think its inherendly dangerous to just automatically block anyone who disagrees with you?
If you see only comments that agree with you or interract only with people who have the same opinions, your views will never be challenged. Many of the societys problems has its roots in people living in their own bubble.
Totally agree, in principle. That’s why I don’t use that very feature, which already exists - i.e. blocking (permanently). Are you against it?
Im against auto-blocking.
The block feature we have now is fine for what it is, because user needs to review case by case if they want to block somebody or not and they will always keep seeing other peoples opinions even if they try to make a bubble for them self.
The auto-block would be context-specific and temporary, as I described. Essentially it’s a fine-tuning of the existing block feature, which I totally agree is excessively heavy-handed (and I don’t use it for that reason).
I disagree. Its not fine tuning. Its fundamentally changing it.
I firmly belive that if we are ready to write anything on to a public channel, in this case even with anonymity, we need to be ready to accept critique and the fact that people will sometimes disagree with you. Also there will always be irrelevant, or snarky comments, but as a adult we should be able to ignore those. If you are not ready to accept it, you should reflect with yourself, if you should even be writing anything.
Artificially making it seem like everybody agrees with you is just lying to yourself and skewing your own perception of the mattet.
Also as a another point. This whole discussion we have right now comes from disagreement. I have read your comments, it has made me ponder things i would not have tought without you and weighted things you have written. I hope you have done the same. Even when we clearly have different opinions i think we have argued in good spirit.
The system you are suggesting would remove these interactions completelly.
The difference between you and me is that I read your opinions and let them stand, while you vote mine down. Why should I be interested in what you think when you are declaring openly that my opinions are illegitimate and not worth considering? I’m not doing that to you. Because why should I? You’re being perfectly respectful, even interesting. Why would I downvote you? And why would you downvote me?
I am more than happy to deal with reasoned criticism. A downvote is “Shut up”.
Moreover (and this is really all that counts) this feature would not affect you. You would be free to go on downvoting and being downvoted. Those who don’t appreciate having their contributions shouted down could talk (and disagree) quietly and respectfully among themselves as adults. It’s my idea of social-media utopia and this small feature would make it possible.
Well i havent downvoted you during this conversation…
And you must be somewhat intrested in what im saying because you take your time and respond to my arguments.
And id like to think that given good enough argument i could change my mind.
I think we perceive the downvote differently. I dont think it means shut up. Its a binary choise. (Or ternary because no voting is choice too). There is hardly enough substance to interpret any intention behind it. Its just something people press, when somebody dont have anything to add to the discussion, or they dont have time to write their own comment.
It’s my idea of social-media utopia and this small feature would make it possible.
This is the fundamental part we seem to disagree with. I dont think its “utopia”, i think its facade, that only creates personal echochambers for people guarding them from seeing any opposing opinions.
Again, I promise you I have no problem with being contradicted. I have in-person friends who I disagree with on politics and it is not an issue. I have a problem with being told “I am publicly tagging your contribution as bad”. That is what downvoting is.
Anyway, I understand your take, I’ve heard it a hundred times. You don’t think it’s a big deal. You’re in the majority. I get it. I would just like the option not to have to see the content of people who are publicly declaring - even though nothing obliges them to - that what I have to say is worthless.
Hello, i downvoted this because i strongly disagree, but that doesn’t mean i’m not open to discuss this (are discussions not why platforms like this exist in the first place?). A downvote doesn’t mean i don’t care, like you suggest.
People should be allowed to agree AND disagree, and still be allowed to explain why they downvote.I disagree with OP too, but I also think downvotes are not great for disagreement. I like them much more for marking something as wrong or off topic. Otherwise we just limit lemmy to a tool that finds the majority opinion, instead of being an actual discussion platform.
For example, OP starts a discussion and your comment that I disagree with is a legitimate opinion, so I won’t downvote either. But if someone tried to derail the discussion by commenting ramen recipes, I might downvote that.
it’s probably impossible to get downvotes to be anything other than agree/disagree buttons at this point, but I like to dream of a world where it’s for contributes-to-productive-conversation/mindless-nonsense-or-hate-speech.
Downvotes should only be for posts like
lol this ^I’ve never been able to imagine a system that could convince random users to use it like that, though.
So we agree in substance. Why then would you be against a feature that would allow you (entirely optionally) not to see the contributions of people who have marked your content as illegitimate? This is what I don’t get.
I don’t tend to believe in technical fixes, but this particular feature would really improve my experience here. Maybe yours, too.
Why should I not be free to hide comments by people who have openly declared that they prefer not to see mine?
Downvoters can disagree on something, hence the downvote. I don’t mind seeing your post, because it opens a new discussion for a possible new feature. Now we can talk about whenever it is a good thing or not. And i simply disagree.
Do you disagree on principle with any feature that might create a better experience for other users while changing nothing for you?
In this case, yes. Because next time i downvote something, i’m not allowed to explain why. How respectful i may be, you take away my freedom to share my opinion. On a open platform, of all… This is a place of discussions, criticism often is a part of that. Can’t handle that? This place might not be for you.
The feature would not block permanently, I agree that’s unhealthy. BTW: I hardly block people at all, and I never downvote (literally never).
What seems incoherent to me in all this (completely predictable) pushback is that this feature would not affect anyone else’s experience at all. People are already free to block you manually. Nobody is taking your freedom away. So why the opposition?
