Lmao did you even read my comment? Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?
People have a tendency to pile on and dismiss any opinion or comment with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it, like what’s happening just above this comment.
That comment did not justify your original comment, which was:
I don’t think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences discussion.
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion. Neither do downvotes. No one, not even you, is entitled to a response. Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won’t? That’s ludicrous.
So as far as- “Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?,” that would be you, who claimed downvotes silenced discussion.
Again, did you even read my comment? Pointing out a tendency people have isn’t “entitlement”. People shy away from small numbers and interact with large numbers more.
Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won’t?
We literally see this in threads all the time. Negatively voted comments are responded to with one-liners or nothing at all, as if the negative votes somehow prove them wrong.
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion
Lmao I’ll be “discussing” this topic with my wall now
You again did not explain how anyone is silenced by downvotes. And we do not “literally see this” because you have no idea if those people who downvoted were ever going to respond.
I don’t think downvotes should be a thing at all tbh. Just silences anyonediscussion.
.
you have no idea if those people who downvoted were ever going to respond
That’s not what I said:
People have a tendency to … dismiss any opinion … with -1 votes or less instead of properly responding to it
People dismiss it either because it has low visibility since it’s downvoted so people wouldn’t see it, or because of our tendency for big numbers.
Taking out downvotes would allow for less popular opinions (that do not break rules by being hateful or spam; you’d report it in those cases) to have higher visibility and discussion since the majority can’t just downvote it, just because they slightly disagree with it or are biased against it, and silence discussion.
People who do agree would also be able to show it through upvotes, and it wouldn’t be eaten by the downvotes.
Thanks for your comments actually. Got me to think about the benefits more clearly. Discussions are great.
You know what’s weird? What’s weird is that, despite your claim that people aren’t having discussions with people who get downvoted, my reply to you was part of a huge amount of discussion with someone who was downvoted. And that is true of multiple other discussions in this post.
Lmao did you even read my comment? Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?
That comment did not justify your original comment, which was:
Someone not responding to your post does not silence discussion. Neither do downvotes. No one, not even you, is entitled to a response. Who sees a downvote and decides that they were going to respond but now won’t? That’s ludicrous.
So as far as- “Who said anything about not commenting if you’re getting negative votes?,” that would be you, who claimed downvotes silenced discussion.
Again, did you even read my comment? Pointing out a tendency people have isn’t “entitlement”. People shy away from small numbers and interact with large numbers more.
We literally see this in threads all the time. Negatively voted comments are responded to with one-liners or nothing at all, as if the negative votes somehow prove them wrong.
Lmao I’ll be “discussing” this topic with my wall now
You again did not explain how anyone is silenced by downvotes. And we do not “literally see this” because you have no idea if those people who downvoted were ever going to respond.
My comment:
.
That’s not what I said:
People dismiss it either because it has low visibility since it’s downvoted so people wouldn’t see it, or because of our tendency for big numbers.
Taking out downvotes would allow for less popular opinions (that do not break rules by being hateful or spam; you’d report it in those cases) to have higher visibility and discussion since the majority can’t just downvote it, just because they slightly disagree with it or are biased against it, and silence discussion.
People who do agree would also be able to show it through upvotes, and it wouldn’t be eaten by the downvotes.
Thanks for your comments actually. Got me to think about the benefits more clearly. Discussions are great.
That is absolutely not how Lemmy works. Downvoting has no effect whatsoever. This is not Reddit.
I assume you’re talking about the ‘active’ and ‘hot’ sorting?
From the Lemmy docs:
You’d also notice this if you use Lemmy for any length of time lmao
You know what’s weird? What’s weird is that, despite your claim that people aren’t having discussions with people who get downvoted, my reply to you was part of a huge amount of discussion with someone who was downvoted. And that is true of multiple other discussions in this post.
Is this post special? Is it the exception?
I am the exception because I keep the less visibility thing in mind