I really like the ability to downvote. It enables me to say "this was badly argumented and a waste of my time" without spending too much effort for that. I'd write it anyway, but probably using impolite words that would be worse for the Fediverse than my downvotes are.

I dont remember where I've seen the stats, but I make about 10 upvotes per one downvote. I strongly believe at least my downvoting behaviour does more good than bad for the Forumverse.

When I was looking for a good instance for myself, Blåhaj seemed like an excellent fit, but when I noticed the downvote button was missing, I changed my mind. I would be annoyed if that feature disappeared altogether.

At least on PieFed's Matrix chat there has been very constructive conversations about whether and how to allow downvoting. To my eyes, the solutions they came up with seem very good.

Not that I'd remember off the back of my hand what the hell they decided in the end. Maybe someone will tell? :) @rimu@piefed.social @wjs018@piefed.social

@rabiezaater@piefed.social not all instances enable them. I think Piefed can restrict them in some manners (local users only, or something), and in NodeBB you can disable them completely.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, if you think downvotes are not good, run a software (or join an instance) that doesn't have them enabled.

Are you stating fact based on research and analysis, or are you venturing an opinion?

To be fair, you accumulated most of the downvotes (I see) in a single post and the attached comments. You got two things at the same time: the unpopularopinions community tends to be harsh. From my experience I'd say you get way more downvotes there, than in other communities. And secondly, you picked one of the two super controversial topics. Brace for downvotes if you post about AI. Or Israel. Dunno if the latter toned down a bit, or if I've unsubscribed from enough communities since.

It'll be better with almost all other topics.

Not sure if I'd go straight for "silencing". I mean the post and most comments are still there. So it's just that you got a lot of backlash. But I can still read what you wrote. And you got quite some engagement. But I get what you mean.

And down-votes are a bit weird. We never agree if they mean bury the content somewhere at the bottom. Or if it means " I disagree with what you wrote". That just gets lumped together. And some people use them sparingly, some hand out a lot of downvotes. Which I guess could be fine if they're used to for the frontpage ranking to sort the posts. But the way we use them doesn't really give them the right weight.

And by the way, I'm not sure if I like up-votes either. You'll get 300 of them for re-posting a meme. And 3 upvotes for coming up with really good advice to someone's question.

Much as people would like them to, both upvotes and downvotes mean very little. I learned this on reddit but it seems equally true here.

The only scenario where I see disabling downvotes as a good idea is when upvotes are disabled as well.

So you either:

• have only number of views (no up/down votes) so people don't chase virtual points
• or there are both of them so that when combined they result in a fair rating.

Upvoting without downvoting doesn't show if people like it, nor whether it is good or bad. It only shows that it reached a lot of people and is popular. And that can be achieved with views alone.

I would like to see more finely-grained feedback than just "no". Particularly as it forces the voter to justify why they're downvoting.

Some posts/contents are bad because they're spam, abusive, or against the rules, or in the wrong place - downvoting these is useful crowd-sourced moderation, particularly for things that don't warrant a mod report.

Some are just indisputably wrong and it's a useful signal that the poster is talking rubbish. Then there's the grey area.

Sometimes it's just that the poster's opinion is unpopular, and people are downvoting to suppress views they disagree with - I think that's not a good thing for a discussion and encourages echo chambers. I like the idea of one of the downvote options being "I disagree" and that basically not doing anything.

Then go use a platform that's doesn't use them. Bye.

I mean it's a mixed bag.. I get the idea of nothing should be removed, blocked, downvoted etc... as the ideal of free speach.

Right up until you look at every platform that explicitly avoids it and goes full "We're all about free speech!".

IE huge problem is, the first people to jump to those platforms, are the ones that have been banned for good reason from everywhere else. Which of course means... nazi's come in droves Reasonable people that either have less borderline, or perhaps no borderline thoughts get there... see 500 posts from nazi's, and head for the door imidiately, until it just turns into a nazi echo chamber.

I'd probably do less blocking if I could downvote instead. Not sure if that's good or bad.

I'd like to see automatic downvoting as a feature of the Fediverse. Don't give anyone the option to upvote or NOT to downvote. It's a race to Hell brothers and sisters.

unfortunately it varies from different instances, but there's quite a few that don't have voting.

and I can recommend voyager app because you can just turn them off in settings.

the beauty of the fediverse is that you can have requirements for your browsing patterns/instance that you can follow and not everyone has to do that very same thing. you can join a platform that represents your type of content or even make your own.