One of the things that sets Lemmy, and the collective fediverse apart from other platforms is its community. Recently, there’s been a large influx of new users (myself included; thus I apologize if this is not the right location for this post). A toxic trait associated with other platforms is the incorrect use of the downvote. Historically, this function was used to hide comments that detracted from the conversation; however, next to no one uses it as intended, and it’s primarily used as a I disagree with you button.
I don’t think we’ll ever change how the downvote is used now - it’s current use is too entrenched. Instead, I suggest that rather than just downvoting and moving on with something you disagree with, that users expand on why they disagree with the post or comment. Not only does this generate more content, but it also can take the conversation into new areas and offer new perspectives that the OP had not considered. You might even actually change a mind or two by doing so, thus bringing people around to see your side of the coin. Commenting (with civility) on stuff you don’t agree with is beneficial on all fronts. It promotes discussion, and it offers new perspectives. It also minimizes the likelihood of echo chambers forming. That last bit is what I’ve come to value here the most. Other sites are just massive echo chambers where there’s a rote response or opinion. This creates a stale environment for users, and deters people from commenting. Why comment, when you know what the answer will be, or that you’ll be jumped on at the first word of disagreement with the entrenched opinion?
But what if I don’t have time to comment to support my downvote? Simple - don’t downvote unless the item you’re downvoting truly detracts from the conversation (as per the functions original intent).
I realize this is a bit of a rant/ramble, but I think by actively putting more effort into our comments and downvotes, we can make lemmy an even richer community than it already is.
Thanks for taking the time to read,
- Shovel
I believe this approach to be vulnerable to Sea Lions since “debating” facts with someone not tethered to, or respecting of reality is a lesson in futility since the time/effort wasted is the goal.
That’s an amazing analogy. I love it.
I had to think about it for some time. Then I imagined arguing with a barking sea lion. :)
In these cases, I give them the benefit of the doubt and try to provide a rational argument why I disagree with them. It either sparks a discussion/debate or they’re obviously trolling and I downvote and move on. But some people that seem like trolls are really just ignorant and showing them why you disagree can help them shape their opinion.