No, the people who frequent communities tend to upvote/downvote more. On the collective level that results in the stuff people in that community want to see drifting to the top, and the stuff they don’t want to see drifting to the bottom. That filters out a lot of bullshit and makes the user experience better.
It’s not like algorithms are being manipulated to promote a profit motive or political agenda, or amplify an in-group while marginalizing out-groups, the way corporate social media does.
It’s just an organic filtering based on what the community members as a collective do or don’t want to see.
If you don’t like the vibe of one community, go find a different one or start your own. Telling people to stop downvoting you is just petulant.
It’s just an organic filtering based on what the community members as a collective do or don’t want to see.
Don’t you think that people restrict themselves if they are downvoted for opinions that go against the majority? Dull people like me write their opinion anyway but I think more nuanced people don’t bother writing if that is rejcted anyway.
If I wander into a tankie comm and start calling out tankies for being authoritarian hypocrites, I’ll accept the downvotes that I’ll inevitably be swarmed with. Sooner or later I’ll get banned from the comm because tankies can’t tolerate any disagreement or being called out on their hypocrisy and disinformation. Whatever, good riddance. I’ll just block that comm and go over to one where everybody shits on tankies. And when the tankies show up there to call everyone shitlibs, we’ll downvote them into oblivion. Such is the fediverse. Such is life.
Then if a right-winger shows up and starts spouting fascist rhetoric, we’ll all downvote them and probably block them and they’ll probably get banned. Again, good riddance. I don’t want nazis showing up where I hang out.
That’s two extremes. Now there’s a whole range in between. If I think someone’s being disingenuous or not worth engaging with, I’ll just downvote and move on. Unless I chime in to have someone else’s back. If someone says something I simply disagree with, I probably won’t downvote unless it’s an extremely bad take that shouldn’t see the light of day, or if I think they’re being an asshole, or if they’re complaining about being downvoted.
Then there’s a whole range where it’s worth having an intelligent discussion about the different angles we’re approaching the situation from. I think those are the most fulfilling interactions, but also the most rare. But I’m also not going to tolerate heaps of bullshit in a vain hope to turn a frog into an erudite scholar.
I could break this down into more painstaking detail and try to describe a formula by which I decide what’s worth downvoting and what’s not, but the truth is, that’s not how it works because I’m a human and I don’t need a graphing calculator to tell me what side of the regular distribution or how many standard deviations the line of best fit is on. I just downvote what I feel like downvoting, and I upvote what I feel like upvoting. It doesn’t need to be any more objective or deterministic than that. It’s one vote, and if 40 other users happen to agree with me by also downvoting, then so be it.
If you’re the one getting downvoted 40 times, just get over it. You’ll have a miserable experience here if you can’t learn to do that.
I think those are the most fulfilling interactions, but also the most rare. But I’m also not going to tolerate heaps of bullshit in a vain hope to turn a frog into an erudite scholar.
I am a bit more optimistic. I think that most people on a text based message board can write good enough arguments and pointing out the bullshit helps them to improve much more than heaps of downvotes.
But my problem is more with people who don’t write interesting comments because they don’t want to be downvoted. I think we are missing out on many interesting arguments.
If you’re the one getting downvoted 40 times, just get over it. You’ll have a miserable experience here if you can’t learn to do that.
For the most parts I state facts so downvotes don’t bother me directly but isn’t this the thing, that people who don’t get over it leave?
How do you figure? No complaining would be nice, but wouldn’t lemmy fully drift into a self-inflicted filter bubble?
No, the people who frequent communities tend to upvote/downvote more. On the collective level that results in the stuff people in that community want to see drifting to the top, and the stuff they don’t want to see drifting to the bottom. That filters out a lot of bullshit and makes the user experience better.
It’s not like algorithms are being manipulated to promote a profit motive or political agenda, or amplify an in-group while marginalizing out-groups, the way corporate social media does.
It’s just an organic filtering based on what the community members as a collective do or don’t want to see.
If you don’t like the vibe of one community, go find a different one or start your own. Telling people to stop downvoting you is just petulant.
Don’t you think that people restrict themselves if they are downvoted for opinions that go against the majority? Dull people like me write their opinion anyway but I think more nuanced people don’t bother writing if that is rejcted anyway.
If I wander into a tankie comm and start calling out tankies for being authoritarian hypocrites, I’ll accept the downvotes that I’ll inevitably be swarmed with. Sooner or later I’ll get banned from the comm because tankies can’t tolerate any disagreement or being called out on their hypocrisy and disinformation. Whatever, good riddance. I’ll just block that comm and go over to one where everybody shits on tankies. And when the tankies show up there to call everyone shitlibs, we’ll downvote them into oblivion. Such is the fediverse. Such is life.
Then if a right-winger shows up and starts spouting fascist rhetoric, we’ll all downvote them and probably block them and they’ll probably get banned. Again, good riddance. I don’t want nazis showing up where I hang out.
That’s two extremes. Now there’s a whole range in between. If I think someone’s being disingenuous or not worth engaging with, I’ll just downvote and move on. Unless I chime in to have someone else’s back. If someone says something I simply disagree with, I probably won’t downvote unless it’s an extremely bad take that shouldn’t see the light of day, or if I think they’re being an asshole, or if they’re complaining about being downvoted.
Then there’s a whole range where it’s worth having an intelligent discussion about the different angles we’re approaching the situation from. I think those are the most fulfilling interactions, but also the most rare. But I’m also not going to tolerate heaps of bullshit in a vain hope to turn a frog into an erudite scholar.
I could break this down into more painstaking detail and try to describe a formula by which I decide what’s worth downvoting and what’s not, but the truth is, that’s not how it works because I’m a human and I don’t need a graphing calculator to tell me what side of the regular distribution or how many standard deviations the line of best fit is on. I just downvote what I feel like downvoting, and I upvote what I feel like upvoting. It doesn’t need to be any more objective or deterministic than that. It’s one vote, and if 40 other users happen to agree with me by also downvoting, then so be it.
If you’re the one getting downvoted 40 times, just get over it. You’ll have a miserable experience here if you can’t learn to do that.
I am a bit more optimistic. I think that most people on a text based message board can write good enough arguments and pointing out the bullshit helps them to improve much more than heaps of downvotes.
But my problem is more with people who don’t write interesting comments because they don’t want to be downvoted. I think we are missing out on many interesting arguments.
For the most parts I state facts so downvotes don’t bother me directly but isn’t this the thing, that people who don’t get over it leave?