this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
95 points (77.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43896 readers
1023 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
95
Do you think the Internet and websites with 'voting' systems encourage hivemind thinking and discourage any debate or discourse? Solutions? (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I 'upvote' more or less all posts I interact with (sometimes I forget to vote). I feel like we should bring back open dialogues and heavily dissuade people from simply disregarding someone's entire belief system or ideals based on 200 characters of text (an example).

Think about one person in your life who you first thought was a complete asshole and once you got to know them they were pretty cool, maybe you became best friends with them. The point is, judging a person based on a minute snippet in time is a fool's errand, and your own state of mind contributes a lot to your own judgement of people. Your next thought might be, well they have a history of x, y AND z, so they deserve every bit of judgement coming their way! I would ask you, why? Are you not simply fueling further hatred, vitriol and division? So instead of stopping for a moment and thinking about the world from someone else's perspective, you'd rather just spit out some more hatred and move on like that person doesn't exist?

I would love to see some solution to the shitty state of the Internet. I only say Internet because for the most part this doesn't happen in real life in my experience. I think it has to do with consequences and social sigma and so on. I reckon it would be pretty awesome if there was something like the following:

  • all upvotes are free range, people can give out upvotes like they were candy
  • downvotes come at a "cost", whereby if you want to downvote someone you have to reply directly to them with some justification, say minimum number of characters, words, etc.

In an ideal world, and setup, this would help raise positivity in the world and have people at the very least have a second thought before being negative.

Yes I understand there would be flaws, I've worked with and used computers for a long time, I know. I chose not to delve deep into those as I feel that would defeat the purpose of the message I'm trying to convey. And, you know, lead by example.

What do ya'll think? Any suggestions to boost positivity in the world, I'm all ears, smash them and any other thoughts in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 90 points 1 year ago (2 children)

downvotes come at a β€œcost”, whereby if you want to downvote someone you have to reply directly to them with some justification, say minimum number of characters, words, etc.

I think it's the complete opposite. Platforms with downvotes tend to be less toxic because you don't have to reply to insane people to tell them they're wrong, whereas platforms like Twitter get really toxic because you only see the likes, so people tend to get into fights and "ratio" them which actually increases the attention they get and spreads their message to other people.

In general, platforms without upvotes/downvotes tend to be the most toxic imo. Platforms like old-school forums and 4chan are a complete mess because low-effort troll content is as loud as high effort thoughtful ones. It takes one person to de-rail a conversation and get people to fight about something else, but with downvotes included you just lower their visibility. It's basically crowdsourced moderation, and it works relatively well.

As for ways to reduce toxicity, shrug. Moderation is the only thing that really stops it but if you moderate too much then you'll be called out for censoring people too much, and telling them not to get mad is just not going to happen.

My idea for less toxicity is having better filtering options for things people want to see. Upon joining a platform it would give easy options to filter out communities that are political or controversial. That's what I'm doing on Lemmy, I'm here for entertainment, not arguing.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep exactly, you'll get hiveminds and echo chambers without downvotes

Instagram is another example. Part of it is the algorithm promoting controversial and toxic comments, and part of it is the lack of downvotes and threaded comments.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you? Take for instance an far right subreddit. Any decent opinion will probably be downvoted to hell, thus forming a echo chamber

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What I said was that echo chambers still form even without downvotes being an option. Plenty of spaces are echo chambers without downvotes.

I agree that downvotes can amplify an echo chamber. But they also cut down on a lot of toxicity that's otherwise present when all the controversial / toxic / hurtful comments stay prominently displayed. When that happens, there's just a cycle of polarization and more people saying controversial and hurtful things.

The benefits of having downvotes outweigh the small amplification of the echo chambers they can cause. However I'm curious to see how it goes on Lemmy. A lot of the places where I've seen the above problem were places that prioritized engagement (instagram, twitter, YouTube).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Haha I think 4chan is a completely different beast. I'm seeing quite differing opinions on the thread, which is cool. It's enlightening to see how people think about issues like this. I can see how both sides hold merit. Though in a way I disagree on simply telling people they're wrong. I feel you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. In my experience, it's much more effective to ask people questions and maybe they begin to see, or not, it's out of my control at that point.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

People don't generally want to argue other people out of positions, because they're not usually online to get into debates. A downvote isn't telling someone they're a bad person, it's feedback on a specific post, which the poster can ignore or use as information to try to improve whatever they're communicating. (Me, I do like to debate)