Downvotes suck. I get it, they are made up internet points coming from strangers (or bots) that you know nothing about, and you shouldn’t let that get you down. Still, putting in a few minutes of effort to share your opinion and engage with the community just to see a downvote is disheartening.
Based on the patterns of downvotes I see on a post, it seems like there is usually one or two people downvoting everything they wouldn’t personally say themselves. Extrapolating from this, I presume there is a population of users that contribute more downvotes than anything.
Personally, I don’t think the platform should allow any user to spend more time tearing things down than building other things up. Only allowing downvotes after so many upvotes would help stop trolls and could help generate more engagement via upvotes.
Edit:
The upvote/downvote count would be a global count including posts and comments, not a post specific count. This solution does not prevent downvoting, it merely adds friction to those who predominantly leave negative feedback by ensuring their positive feedback elsewhere. Sure, some would go on to upvote unsavory things, but others would attempt to further engage with their interests, and some would simply lurk.
If any good faith user approached the limitation, they would likely be better served by curating their feed.
Do you think users that contribute downvotes more than anything add to the community interaction and help create open discussions? I personally think they inhibit that and discourage others from sharing. This is a limit that practically should not be reached by any good faith users, so I do not anticipate a net negative effect.
It really doesn’t matter what I think, or what you think, about such users, because any such opinion could only be a generalization, and therefore not a good basis for making policy decisions.
I don’t think you’re putting enough thought into unintended consequences. Censorship is sometimes necessary (the classic example of yelling “fire!” in a theater) but always problematic. It should never be implemented in blanket policies but only in specific cases to drive specific outcomes (not to create a generally more positive atmosphere) - hence moderation and reporting.
If you were to implement a policy like this, what you are doing is saying to the entire community, “I don’t trust you to express your opinions without guardrails, and so I am putting this filter on you to adjust them.” It’s a very parental idea, it seems motivated by a desire to control the conversation on a broad scale.
There’s a lot of children, of all ages, on the internet.
Nice dodge. I don’t think its a generalization, I think its inherently perpendicular to the goals of the platform. There is no way to objectively measure that, and only the mods have the stats to attempt to approximate it with a large margin of error and shakey axioms.
I think this is a very specific case that only effects a small but vocal subset of users. And yes, I think trolls who spam downvotes need parenting. The existence of moderators suggests we can’t be trusted to say anything we want. Again, good faith users will never hit this limitation.
Have you considered the consequence of someone seeing that message and realizing they are being overly negative? It still allows unlimited downvotes, but introduces more effort only for the “downvote trolls”. Even seeing a popup and acknowledging they are downvoting more than upvoting would increase the friction.
It could increase polarization due to those now required to upvote, but orients people to encourage more which engages users.
If this had been a dodge I would’ve just moved on without explaining why what I think doesn’t matter, which I of course immediately did in the same sentence.
And yet, your conclusion has no specific examples or support of any kind beyond your own impressions and feelings… so it is generalization.
Interesting. What are “the goals of the platform”?
The existence of moderators suggests that moderating conversation between humans requires contextual, circumstantial, individual and specific decision-making. That is, it requires human attention on each instance rather than broad conversation-affecting policies.
Does it? Do you have any data to support this conclusion?
If there’s one thing we’ve learned from social media companies, it’s that nothing drives user engagement like negativity. Now understand, I’m not saying this is good or that the outrage-surfacing algorithms are something to emulate, I am only saying that your statement here isn’t supported by available evidence.
I’m pulling this statement out of order and out of context because I want to emphasize it specifically. In my opinion lemmy is not an appropriate place for this nor are you (or anyone here) the appropriate person to try to parent other people who you have only interacted with via lemmy (unless someone directly asks you for mentoring in some way). Again, I think this reveals a desire to control the way that other people express themselves.
I was referring to the goals that you listed in the previous comment. It seems like you entire argument is that I do not have any objective data on subjective goals. And yes, the presence of moderators and community/platform rules also reveals a desire to control the way people express themselves.
This post isn’t a submission for a code change, its to get the conversation started on the problem (that you refuse to acknowledge) of users who predominantly leave downvotes. Your persistence about my lack of data is goofy, just nip it in the bud and say you will only consider policy changes proposed by moderators with stats to back their proposal. This is post is supposed to be the thing that might spur someone with the data to then look into it.
Actually, my argument is that the motivation to control user interaction in a broad way like you propose is inherently flawed because it comes from a desire to control people.
The difference, again, is that moderator actions are individual, specific, contextual, and limited to a specific point in time, and also logged. Removing a particular comment or banning a particular user is very different from adjusting the balance of voting wholesale. Moderation is better because it is limited and flexible to each individual situation.
No, I am not refusing to acknowledge the problem, I am saying that your proposed solution (1) won’t address that problem effectively and (2) will create additional problems that (long-term) will be worse for the community. The cost/benefit doesn’t work out.
I comment on your lack of data because I think your conclusions about what will or won’t improve community interaction are emotional and anecdotal. And frankly, I think the track record of social media demonstrates the opposite - people engage with controversy. Enforced positivity turns people off, it kills meaningful conversation. It’s like Disneyland - nice for a visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there.