Because to me, they seem like de facto "Agree and “Disagree” buttons, whether or not it was the intent.
Yes. That’s how people use it, so that’s what it is. The original intention doesn’t matter.
They should be “this is worthy to be seen by many” and “this is not”. Sometimes that also overlaps with my agreement with the post.
This is how I use the vote arrows too.
I think I’ve gotten a little idealistic since moving to lemmy because I definitely used the votes as agree/disagree on Reddit, because it was clear that was what the hivemind decided it was for, who was I to argue.
In the olden days there was ‘reddiquette’ which still existed on smaller, non default subs. You’d downvote poor contributions and up vote good ones
It was literally in the reddiquette that you’re not supposed to use them like that, but in practice, you’re absolutely right and that’s how they’re used.
Upvote: I agree at least for the most part.
Downvote: I have problems with the general content, or the source of the content.
No vote: I’m not going to downvote you, but I don’t have to upvote you either.
My upvotes are for posts I like, downvotes I don’t really use except when the content is factually wrong or misleading
I’ll use downvote if the person is overtly racist, homophobic or just mean. Name calling or being just unpleasant. It’s ok to not agree. It’s not ok to dehumanize someone for a different perspective.
That’s how I treat them. Maybe with a bit more nuance: I’ll upvote for something funny, informative things, or general good takes. I’ll downvote if someone has a bad take, is unnecessarily mean, or is generally incoherent.
If the comment doesn’t spark a reaction I just keep scrolling.
Often too I’ll upvote a highly downvoted comment because I don’t think it deserved to be downvoted as much as it was, even if it’s one I’d otherwise downvote. Unless it’s horrible, in which case I’ll pile the fuck on
What you say and what you describe are not the same. Your explanation is literally how it was explained on the other site. So you are better than you think you are. =)
And I do it the same as you. Something I disagree with or don’t like but is reasonably argued and not mean or full of any -isms? No vote from me.
I thought so too, but about a year ago or so this same question popped up, and some of the comments were really eye opening.
The essence of it was something like this: if you use the upvote/downvote buttons as agree/disagree, then you’re contributing to turning this platform into an echo chamber, which is the particular thing that makes social media such a shitty place.
You should use this feature on posts to indicate if it’s relevant to the community’s rules or not, meets the community’s guidelines or not, contains factual, useful information or not.
On comments, you should use it to indicate if it’s relevant to the topic or not, valid argument to what they’re replying to or not, regardless of your own opinion.
A great example someone commented was, when he explained they were browsing lemmy together with his girlfriend, they had a great laugh at a comment, and then he promptly downvoted it, to her surprise. And it’s because, even though the comment was fantastic, it was off topic, it wasn’t useful for the actual conversation.
Oh, and actually, there was a thing, even on Reddit - believe it or not - which acted as upvote/downvote guidelines, describing how you should use those buttons.
I’ll try to link the original post here if I find it.
Edit: Here’s the comment I was referring to on the original post: https://lemmy.world/comment/5219066
There are many ways people use them.
The way I use them and I wish everyone did is:
Upvote = I agree with this, this is what I would have posted too if I had seen the comment earlier, this is extraordinarily funny or insightful and I want more people to see it
Downvote = I think this doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the discussion at all, it would have been better if it hadn’t been posted, others shouldn’t have to read it
The vast majority of things doesn’t fall into either of these categories, so I neither upvote nor downvote them; if I merely disagree with something, I write a counterargument but do not downvote.
I think there’s a shorter way to say this.
Upvote means promote. I think this should be seen.
Downvote means demote. I don’t think this should be seen.
Yes, but a lot of people “don’t think this should be seen” simply because they disagree with it, no matter how much of a good-faith on-topic post it is. That was a main point.
Which is what I’m kinda getting at. It’s always going to be up to the individual. Unfortunately there’s no way to force any kind of consensus.
"Agree and “Disagree” will just leave us in a Lemmy bubble.
They should be more about “good post or bad post”, so something that may be disagreeable gets upvotes if it is well stated.
Reward thought, creativity, etc, and let us all learn.
Agreed.
- Upvote: Adds to the community.
- Downvote: Doesn’t belong in this community.
Disagree
Downvoted
Agree. Upvoted.
They should be more about “good post or bad post”, so something that may be disagreeable gets upvotes if it is well stated.
I don’t care how well stated some anti-vax or flat-earth bullshit is … It’ll get downvoted regardless because I disagree.
That would just be misinformation, something downvote was intended for.
That would just be misinformation
Sure, according to us. But you don’t actually need to be right to think you’re right. If someone believes the earth is flat, they’ll downvote “globe-talk” as misinformation, just as it was intended! So it all just comes back to (dis)agreeing.
Of course, but these examples are provably false. Flat earthers have accidentally disproved themselves many times.
If they are just having a giggle then whatever, but some are serious and that is damaging to the legitimacy of science, which is a dangerous path.
If the poster is open to discussion, perhaps some chat could make them reconsider their position. So I wouldnt necessarily downvote. Context is important, so I still wont just use it as a disagree button.
I know and I chose those two examples to illustrate that people will even disagree with stuff that is blatantly factual. So it just gets worse if you enter murkier territory, like politics or ethics where there is no firm factual basis.
I’m sure you won’t have to search too long for a very well written post by some tanky about how a North Korean style dictatorship is superior to western democracy. Should you upvote it just because it’s well written, even if you think the idology is insane and dangerous?
Don’t forget, I don’t have to vote either way.
That would be nice but, no, it’s the agree/disagree button just like Reddit. There is honestly very little difference between Lemmy and reddit. Mostly just the numbers.
When you upvote a funny comic, does that mean you agree with it? Do you agree with cute cat pics?
It is more than just agree/disagree.
Do you mean by seem that people here seem to use them like that, or that they just seem like that to you?
I try to reserve downvotes for people who are actively harming the discussion. Downvoting good comments just because you disagree is pretty shit behaviour, and I guess the same could be said about upvoting bad comments because you agree with the opinion.
I think this is the best answer?
I’ll also suggest that downvotes can be used for something that is actively wrong, as in deliberate, but I think it’s abused for people who may be ignorantly wrong but not maliciously so. Once the downvote train starts sometimes people can’t catch a break even if they make amends. Really does a disservice and disincentivizes to people’s ability to admit being wrong or learn something new.
people who may be ignorantly wrong but not maliciously so.
I think this one is a bit blurry anyway. If the person had every chance to learn, it’s on them.
Yeah, on the internet it’s really hard to tell if someone just doesn’t get it, is trolling, or is maliciously ignorant. Sometimes a quick check of their recent comments can reveal their MO and tell you who they are.
I upvote content that may be useful or interesting to others, content I agree with and good jokes.
I try to only downvote spam, misinformation and any troll content.
Pretty much this. With maybe the addition of downvoting assholes. You can be right but there is no need to act like a smug prick about something.
This is far more succinct than I could have put it. Same.
Practically yes, despite the way that they ought to be used.
It’s such a shame. Lemmy should be a place where we can collectively share ideas and debate openly. Comments and posts should only ever be downvoted if they’re off topic, hateful or misleading. However, in reality people get downvoted mostly because someone simply doesn’t like or wholly agree with them.
It’s still better here than reddits awful circlejerks and echo chambers, but not by much and we should be wary of devolving to a state where people are disincentivized to post because they have an idea or opinion that may only be slightly off kilter to the hive mind.
Just to let you know, you posted your reply 3 times. I downvoted the other 2 (consider deleting them).
Yes I noticed, sorry, bad internet connection, I have deleted them now.
For posts, upvote means I want more of this, that’s some good content. Downvote means I want less of this, that’s some bad content.
For comments, upvote means good point, good joke, excellent addition to the conversation. Downvote means bad point, bad joke, poor addition to the conversation.
Now I admit I have a hard time upvoting a comment that adds a good point to the discussion, but I personally disagree with.
I do wish we had a way to separate good/bad content from agree/disagree. I know Reddit defaulted to hiding downvoted content, a default that I found reasonable. However using Lemmy, that wasn’t the default, and I’ve grown to prefer seeing all content. Don’t get me wrong, I see some garbage, and I see stuff I disagree with, but I think it’s useful.
I still like the old slashdot method where there were categories you could give to a comment. Was this insightful, or was it funny. I think the method has merits but I am not sure how well it scales as it is more complicated and requires the people moderating to give serious thought to WHY a comment is good or bad.
They’re “I want to see more like this” and “I want to see less like this” buttons.
An upvote should be for quality content/discussion. This might be a well researched comment, a good joke, or just something that leads the discussion in a meaningful or interesting way. Generally, things I think should be valued or shared. There will obviously be bias, but my opinion isn’t the basis of my decision. I try to upvote good-faith or thorough arguments I disagree with.
Downvotes are for low-quality and unhelpful content that I think shouldn’t be spread. This doesn’t have to be irrelevant or against the community rules, but often is. Things I might downvote include overused reposts, unnecessarily rude or insulting comments, low quality comments (IE someone trying to argue a well cited comment with an anecdote and nothing else), or spam.
Sometimes. I think the meaning of the arrows are somewhat contextual.
Downvoting spam for example isn’t “disagreement”, but it is a kind of disapproval.
Upvoting your post isn’t “agreement”, but I do it because I think it’s an interesting question (maybe a kind of approval)?
If we generalized I guess we could ask whether upvotes are always relating positive emotion (approval, agreement, joy, etc.) and downvotes always relating negative emotion (disagreement, disapproval, anger, etc.)?
That is, are upvotes “yays” and downvotes “boos”?
I wouldn’t “agree” with a joke
That is, are upvotes “yays” and downvotes “boos”?
I still upvote posts in news communities informing me of terrible things, so upvote isn’t necessarily a yay. Downvote might be boo, though
hm, I do think what I meant by “yay” is some kind of supportive or positive emotional response, which is still happening when you are upvoting terrible news for being informative, i.e. what you are responding to with “yay” is being informed and wishing others to be informed, not the content of the news itself.
(For context I’m drawing on the metaethical theory of emotivism here as a framework.)
