this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
10 points (54.6% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6294 readers
82 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
10
??? (lemm.ee)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

???

(page 2) 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Only allowing downvotes after so many upvotes would help stop trolls and could help generate more engagement via upvotes.

I strongly doubt this. I suspect it would make downvotes seem like something you 'earned' the right to spend, leading to more downvoting.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I considered this and definitely think it would apply. Though, I guess I think it would still point us in a net positive direction.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

still point us in a net positive direction.

🥁🥁🔔

I just don't really think there's a need to regulate something that has no effect or impact.

If I get a couple down votes 🤷 someone disagrees, or is an idiot. If I get more than a couple it's a good opportunity to think about how I could be clearer or how I might be out of step with popular opinion.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lol oops.

To be fair you just said it has no effect, but then said getting downvotes makes you consider the comment. I think we can describe that as at least a little bit of effect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Have you tried using an app that lets you hide the votes, such as Jerboa?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I still value seeing downvotes, just not from users who predominantly downvote stuff.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Forums that don't allow downvoting at all can be interesting. It removes both the wisdom of the crowd (for quickly muting the idiots) but also removes the petty spiteful downvoters. In my experience this approach can work OK if there are mods banning people for repeat/egregious offenses. Of course moderation is a whole other thing.

Anyway, I don't know if your idea would work long term but it could be fun to try it out in individual communities that want to try the rule, or do it one day a week.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I disagree. It doesn't matter to me if it is bots or grumpy users dow voting. I think the overall benefit of having them treated the same out weighs negatives of abuse. It adds value to the masses vs enabling the individual, yep it comes with feeling bad but that is life. Pushes quality of posts and discussion, some post truly don't deserve a retort only a downvote. Got to be fair and fair includes the ugly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I'm not actually sure what point you are making, I am not suggesting we eliminate downvotes.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

I think I should down vote this.

Twice.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

While I tend to agree, I think there is a bigger issue in trying to condense a range of reactions into fivw options (no action, up vote, down vote, public comment, direct comment).

Upvote for taking effort to add content.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I mean there is a small part of me that feels rejected when I see downvotes. Another small part that is paranoid that someone is following me and downvoting me just out of spite. And the remainder uses it as an opportunity to reflect on what I said to see if either I could have worded it better or to rethink my position on whatever it was I wrote.

My only complaint is that people (myself included, I’ll admit) don’t always leave a comment to why they downvoted. I get it. The culture isn’t always conducive to a good faith discussion/disagreement. But it should be.

People should be safe to disagree with me. In fact, let me put it out there right now:

I will never put you down for coming at me with a good faith disagreement of opinions about anything I say.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why should you change your opinion just because people disagree? Do you trust randos on lemmy who are likely tankie trolls more than yourself to form an opinion?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago

I only downvote spam, hate, factually incorrect, and other nonconstructive content. It’s my personal opinion that the down vote is to be reserved for content that ought to be removed from the platform. A post showing effort and Goodwill is always worth the vote to me.

I would hope that moderators would police spam voting. The problem is sure to get worse in the future.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Downvotes absolutely suck. And that's why some users are so attached to them. Part of the culture that evolved on reddit was that if anyone even mentioned downvotes some people downvoted them "on principle". I have seen people argue that without downvotes upvotes are meaningless. I think that really people like downvotes because it's the nearest most non-technical users can get to reaching through the screen and punching another user.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely, I agree that upvotes dont mean much without downvotes. My solution actually makes downvotes more meaningful. It ensures the downvotes are from someone who engages in the community, rather than a troll.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I suggested once, that in order to downvote, we add a little effort into the process (same could be done for upvoting in my opinion so it doesn't come across as unbalancing things) like making people type in a description of why, or even do like a captcha for the downvote to register. You would have thought I suggested personally beating their grandmother with a lead pipe.

I know people got superheated with my idea, but in my opinion this can be a mental health issue for some and it's worth discussing, not just crapping on. It just seems way too easy to do a driveby downvote brigade. If something is truly that bad, then people shouldn't be too troubled by putting in just a little bit of extra effort to downvote it, and the truly bad posts will still get what they deserve if that's what people think they are doing with this.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I am glad you understand that this is unpopular.

I get the idea behind this, people who are negative for the sake of being negative are a blight, but there shouldn't really be a hard-line rule. Sometimes you just find yourself in a thread of the fediverse full of awful comments, not just things you disagree with, but things that are racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic.

I know that I've gone into comment sections where I've handed out dozens of downvotes, though I also reported most of those same comments. I wouldn't want to have a little pop-up that says "sorry, you can't downvote in this thread until you upvote twice as many".

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

A global count, not post specific.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I still think there might be issues with people who just don't generally upvote, but run into the same type of awful comment section.

If the goal is to discourage trolling, all they would need to do is create a community where a bot posts 100s of comments, and you just go and upvote them all. It would be easier to vote sow.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This is true, but if you care about the platform enough to attempt to steer the direction of the content (away from hate), you should be upvoting the content that brings value to your life.

As for bots, thats a higher level issue the mods/devs already have to deal with.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I assume y'all are downvoting this post because you think its a popular opinion :P

If not, do you think users should be able to contribute nothing but downvotes to the platform, or do you disagree with my methodology of limiting these users?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

It's sadly frustrating because it discourages opposing opinions. I always try to upvote the things that make me want to respond. Whether it's something I can add to or something I disagree with, I'll only downvote when something is obviously spam or deliberately inflammatory without adding to the conversation.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I have seen some mods ban swathes of users with excessively negative voting records, encouraging them to curate their feed instead. I think the ratios were closer to 95% downvotes than the 2:1 you suggest, but the example stands. :)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

In my initial consideration of this problem I was thinking just ban the users, but that doesn't feel like the best solution to me. I think that not allowing users to pass that 2:1 ratio in the first place is a better solution for everyone. Also, as I'm sure you understand, the exact ratio is less important than the idea of limiting downvote predominant users.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›