4 ms·
> It seems to be free to downvote or upvote, so economically it would make sense that there are no repercussions. Since there is no cost to downvoting, it is c
by alphapapa 9y ago
> It seems to be free to downvote or upvote, so economically it would make sense that there are no repercussions.
Since there is no cost to downvoting, it is cheaper in terms of time and effort to--anonymously!--censor opinions than to express them. It's doubly bad because, in order to acquire downvoting privileges, you must first express enough "correct" opinions, which makes the system self-selecting for certain views. It's a fundamentally broken system, because it incentivizes the wrong things, and it's why I stopped commenting here....oops.
- zimpenfish 9y ago> Since there is no cost to downvoting, it is cheaper in terms of time and effort to--anonymously!--censor opinions than to express them. Sometimes it's cheaper in terms of time and effort to downvote rather than engage because the comment or commentator displays obvious* signs that a discussion will be fruitless. * To me, of course; I only represent myself and my opinions.