I hate that I always compare Lemmy to Reddit, but Reddit used to have (not sure if they still do) guidelines called “Reddiquette” that included guidelines about upvoting and downvoting. I don’t remember the specifics (and sending too much of my browser traffic to Reddit makes me feel dirty) but one of the guidelines was not to upvote/downvote on the basis of agreement/disagreement with the content.
On Lemmy, I’m honestly a bit lax about upvoting and downvoting at all. (I’m trying to be better about it.) Buy when I do upvote/downvote, I try to do so on the basis of whether the comment/post “adds to” or “subtracts from” the community or conversation. I can disagree with one comment’s take on some subject but still upvote them if they’ve given me a more nuanced perspective on the issue. If they’re just parrotting well-known talking points and not being thoughtful with their posts, I may downvote them evren if I agree with their ultimate stance.
I’m just mostly wondering how folks on Lemmy think about upvotes/downvotes and what implications that has for the content here.
I downvote for people being assholes (trolling, bigotry, ad hominem, etc), spreading misinformation, or making comments which don’t add to the conversation (“This.”, “This is the way.”), and rarely for anything else.
I upvote content that I find interesting, educational, funny, etc. I also upvote people for being polite and willing to admit to being incorrect (“Thanks for the information, I didn’t know that”, etc).