One of the things that sets Lemmy, and the collective fediverse apart from other platforms is its community. Recently, there's been a large influx of new users (myself included; thus I apologize if this is not the right location for this post). A toxic trait associated with other platforms is the incorrect use of the downvote. Historically, this function was used to hide comments that detracted from the conversation; however, next to no one uses it as intended, and it's primarily used as a I disagree with you button.
I don't think we'll ever change how the downvote is used now - it's current use is too entrenched. Instead, I suggest that rather than just downvoting and moving on with something you disagree with, that users expand on why they disagree with the post or comment. Not only does this generate more content, but it also can take the conversation into new areas and offer new perspectives that the OP had not considered. You might even actually change a mind or two by doing so, thus bringing people around to see your side of the coin. Commenting (with civility) on stuff you don't agree with is beneficial on all fronts. It promotes discussion, and it offers new perspectives. It also minimizes the likelihood of echo chambers forming. That last bit is what I've come to value here the most. Other sites are just massive echo chambers where there's a rote response or opinion. This creates a stale environment for users, and deters people from commenting. Why comment, when you know what the answer will be, or that you'll be jumped on at the first word of disagreement with the entrenched opinion?
But what if I don't have time to comment to support my downvote? Simple - don't downvote unless the item you're downvoting truly detracts from the conversation (as per the functions original intent).
I realize this is a bit of a rant/ramble, but I think by actively putting more effort into our comments and downvotes, we can make lemmy an even richer community than it already is.
Thanks for taking the time to read,
- Shovel
While I agree with the idea of everyone getting the opportunity to be heard and form an opinion, I disagree with your rationale.
relevance to a conversation is a subjective and decided on the fly depending upon how much you know about a subject you or how well you understood what someone was saying.
How someone communicates is defined even more subjectively with more unique flare, accents, lingo, etc which can further obfuscate intended meaning.
Etc etc. idk why we’re trying to categorize and make point systems for fucking everything. I would much rather have a comment section with a sort by controversial button to see where the most “debate” is going on rather than trying to prioritize one comment over another. The bulk of the post is the information, the comments are for communication and discussion and shouldn’t be taken as factual or anything other than subjective anyway.
See, Lemmy, we can do it! this guy did it right here!
honestly. Yay internet capitalism? Humanity must be sum zero.
I think that’s a bit too pessimistic also, it’s quite common for man to use quantifiable means to assign value, seems like a no brainer statement but…
If we put our “value” on things that are countable rather than their utility then it’s no wonder we’re left with quantity over quality.
25 counts of votes is no different from having 25 soldiers in your army. It doesn’t actually reflect qualitative value, only quantitative value.
Idk man it’s a tough problem. When we make judgments of something, it seems like we must condemn the others or put them in a placement that is inferior to others which makes it inherently vulnerable to inaccuracies, bias, etc.
Are we better off filtering the chaos as it comes in or searching for what we want within it?