• Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        If you’re not going to contribute anything but your rage, you should shut up. This is what the downvote button is for.

        • Deebster
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, the downvote is meant to be for things that don’t contribute to the discussion, not for things you disagree with.

          • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            11 months ago

            Is this documented for Lemmy or just grandfathered from Reddit?

            Not all instances even support upvotes. Some only support downvotes. Does every instance have to agree on the meaning?

            • Deebster
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Good question. The documentation says:

              On the left side of each post there are up and down arrows, which let you upvote or downvote it. You can upvote posts that you like so that more users will see them. Or downvote posts so that they are less likely to be seen.

              which doesn’t really back me up.

              My downvote principle was meant more generally - most places that have a downvote policy say that it’s not meant for shouting down people you disagree with, since that’s not conducive for civil and nuanced conversations.

        • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          Upvotes and downvotes are only there to tell people with no wrinkles how they should feel about a post. It creates a preconceived bias.

          Shut up.

        • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          That is not censorship, my smooth friend. Nobody is censoring anybody in this context.

          If you turn your tv off during a newscast are you censoring the broadcaster?

          • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            If my broadcaster blocks the news segments they don’t want me to see, it is. That’s what’s happening here. Instance owners are taking it upon themselves to block content from users. Bullying pieces of shit are trying to strong arm instance owners into defederating.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        If the Threads-blocking instances have this level of maturity, I don’t think we’ll be missing much. Being equally childish as Facebook comments is impressive.

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’d throw some articles showing user counts, but you’d probably just call them fake.

            But if you are actually curious, I can gladly provide some. There was just recently a big influx of users with the EU launch, a tagging system was recently introduced, and more and more large creators have continued to migrate over.

        • n3m37h@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Buh bye! Go to threads then, I seriously dont care.

          Facebook has shown time and time again they can not be trusted with anything.

          From spreading miss information to starting a coup and every shitty thing between.

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Already there actually and have had a pretty good experience, though it doesn’t scratch that same Reddit-style itch nor is it trying to. It’s chilling at somewhere around 100 million users, so I’m not the only one.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Honestly, with the user level blocking feature in personally against instance level blocking as well.

        1. I strong believe in user choice. It’s clear from this thread that there isn’t an overwhelming majority in favor of instance blocking threads. There does not appear to be one that’s not in favor.

        1a) if the instance held a vote on the matter id naturally accept the majority choice.

        1. if privacy is a concern (which it should be because Facebook), we’re already screwed. Fediverse interactions (comments posts votes) are a matter of public record. So even if we block threads at the instance level, they can still zuck up our data so we’re not really gaining anything there.

        Edit: if you’re going to down ote, be better than reddit and expand your thoughts. We’re here to discuss, not act like children redditors