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.
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?
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.
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?
