4 ms·

I’ve made this realization lately as well, that all “upvote” based social media is inherently toxic and bad for society. What’s been lost from the days of actua

I’ve made this realization lately as well, that all “upvote” based social media is inherently toxic and bad for society. What’s been lost from the days of actual internet forums is the ability to make a point, and ignore it if you don’t like it. It used to be that we were all equals under the admin, and discussion was long form. However the incentives now have shifted discourse to the rhetorical and pithy, rather than creating meaningful connections. The result is a monoculture of thought that is doing real damage.

airstrike 8y ago
Upvoted for relevance
lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
Long form discussion is fairly orthogonal to "upvote" based social media in my appraisal. The simple fact that you choose to post your response here instead of one of the 'chan' style boards signals that you're really not looking for spaces where "everyone is equals under the admin".
basic6 8y ago
Karma is awful as well for similar reasons.
kirion25 8y ago
I think it has more to do with how thoughtless downvoting/upvoting can be in some implementations. But this isn't inherent to the upvote system. Requiring a comment for each vote to explain the user's position, for example, can curb this tendency.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  I don't know if requiring a comment for an upvote is so necessary; but requiring a comment (or an upvote of a comment) in order to downvote seems like it could help. I think the problem with upvoting tends to exist where there is no downvoting. I'm mostly at peace with net scores on my replies, though I feel a bit confused when the scores down without explanation. I think it is healthy to some extent to seek validation, but in order for it to be productive, I think we ought to know why people feel the way they do about what we say.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I see lots of stuff upvoted thoughtlessly that might benefit from forcing the voter to explain.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      I think you'd end up with a lot of "+1 funny" "-1 Reeee" stuff, and that'd just add noise to the thread, but not add to the discussion.
      - jessriedel 8y ago
        I agree, but that applies just as well to downvotes. I don't have good ideas how to run a required-comment-to-vote system, I just don't see the asymmetry between up and down.
        microcolonel 8y ago
        Maybe I wasn't clear in saying that I don't think it should be necessary to comment in order to downvote, but I think it should be required to upvote a reply in order to downvote (or make your own reply).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- spinningslate 8y ago
  > Requiring a comment for each vote to explain the user's position, for example, can curb this tendency. Why not just remove the vote altogether? So commenters have to say something about why they agree/disagree/feel the need to comment. And then maybe allow interest groups to form naturally. With a standardised protocol for exchanging messages, so there was no centralised owner of all data. And everyone pays for it implicitly through their ISP fees, like they do for other basic services like email or DNS. Instead of having their data milked, processed and fed back like some grotesque combination of Orwellian fiction and mad cow disease. That sounds like a much more civilised way to Use the Net. Maybe we could call it something like, I dunno, Usenet....?
reificator 8y ago
Upvoted
Apocryphon 8y ago
+1 insightful
markdown 8y ago
I'm not going to upvote you. But I agree with everything you've said and would like to show appreciation as well as let others know that I share your view: This! +1
MikeGale 8y ago
It seems tied to having a single bucket for everybody. I'd probably participate in some discussions if I couldn't see and wasn't involved in the likes, up/downvotes, brownie point scramble. If I just saw similarly inclined people there would be a different kind of discussion.
philipkglass 8y ago
I actually love the upvote/downvote mechanism here. An upvote takes the place of a low-content positive affirmation like "good explanation" or "I agree," which helpfully increases the content:filler ratio for other comment readers. A downvote takes the place of tiresome rebuttals to tedious arguments. If somebody posts "vaccines do cause autism" in a discussion about health care costs, I can just downvote and move on. Without downvotes, people are tempted to make the diversion worse by posting retorts ranging from "go away, troll" to several paragraphs of carefully cited rebuttal. Or if everyone manages to refrain from Feeding the Troll, then the bad comment appears to be just as worthy as every other comment that wasn't rebutted. From what I've seen of relatives who get sucked into lengthy arguments on Facebook, they can't break away because there is no downvote, and letting bad arguments sit otherwise-unchallenged looks like a (weak) endorsement from other participants.
robryan 8y ago
It really depends on the number of participants. A thousand comment thread could take an hour to properly read through every viewpoint. If we are only willing to spend a few minutes on that thread it needs some kind of filter. If there are only 5 participants in a thread though it is different. Traditional forums would be read like this, but were almost always at a much lower scale.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > Traditional forums would be read like this, but were almost always at a much lower scale. Yes, and at too large scales communication becomes less meaningful, you can't scale it to millions of people without getting something else. Even in large cities or at giant festivals, people tend to mingle in smaller groups, there's just more of those groups the larger the city or festival is, it's not like people stand around in ever larger circles, shouting louder and louder. Groups that get too big break up into smaller ones naturally because they start to noticeably suck.
jimmy1 8y ago
An obvious and famous counter-example to this argument is Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules For Life which actually was born out of one of the most popular and up-voted Quora answers. The problem is people have substituted their own critical thinking for a metric of varying quality (upvotes)
tlb 8y ago
Compared to the real world, where people make arguments around the table and others applaud, grunt, hoot, roll their eyes, etc., upvotes seem like a rather mild form of feedback. I don't think zero feedback is a good goal. Even with voting, forums exhibit a level of trolling and asshattery you'd never find if you had to watch people's live reactions to your statements. And not that much grandstanding, compared to, say, politicians in the media. That said, should HN add an option in your profile to hide comment scores? You could always get around it with some effort, but maybe not seeing the score right there would encourage you to comment for truth, beauty, and posterity, rather than upvotes.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > Compared to the real world, where people make arguments around the table and others applaud, grunt, hoot, roll their eyes, etc., upvotes seem like a rather mild form of feedback. That's the problem IMO, it's not just mild, it's nothing, yet weight is attached to it. In the real world, when you make a good argument and someone just rolls their eyes disapprovingly and grunts, you can go "What? What's your problem with what I just said?", and they can't possibly just pretend they're not there or didn't roll their eyes -- like people who downvote without reply often do, which gives them the false impression of having said something. When we don't like something, yet can't find any solid argument against it, that should do something with us, maybe teach us something, and votes are like the most optimized form of memes and other ways to not have to actually think, distilling it to the minimal essence, just a click. I'm not saying nobody thinks when voting, but the only requirement is an account and an input device, not actually thinking. Not so for "using one's words".
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
This is readily apparent if you go back even a few years and read old threads. We are rapidly losing things.

airstrike 8y ago

Upvoted for relevance

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago

Long form discussion is fairly orthogonal to "upvote" based social media in my appraisal. The simple fact that you choose to post your response here instead of one of the 'chan' style boards signals that you're really not looking for spaces where "everyone is equals under the admin".

basic6 8y ago

Karma is awful as well for similar reasons.

kirion25 8y ago

I think it has more to do with how thoughtless downvoting/upvoting can be in some implementations. But this isn't inherent to the upvote system. Requiring a comment for each vote to explain the user's position, for example, can curb this tendency.

microcolonel 8y ago
I don't know if requiring a comment for an upvote is so necessary; but requiring a comment (or an upvote of a comment) in order to downvote seems like it could help. I think the problem with upvoting tends to exist where there is no downvoting. I'm mostly at peace with net scores on my replies, though I feel a bit confused when the scores down without explanation. I think it is healthy to some extent to seek validation, but in order for it to be productive, I think we ought to know why people feel the way they do about what we say.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I see lots of stuff upvoted thoughtlessly that might benefit from forcing the voter to explain.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    I think you'd end up with a lot of "+1 funny" "-1 Reeee" stuff, and that'd just add noise to the thread, but not add to the discussion.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      I agree, but that applies just as well to downvotes. I don't have good ideas how to run a required-comment-to-vote system, I just don't see the asymmetry between up and down.
      - microcolonel 8y ago
        Maybe I wasn't clear in saying that I don't think it should be necessary to comment in order to downvote, but I think it should be required to upvote a reply in order to downvote (or make your own reply).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
spinningslate 8y ago
> Requiring a comment for each vote to explain the user's position, for example, can curb this tendency. Why not just remove the vote altogether? So commenters have to say something about why they agree/disagree/feel the need to comment. And then maybe allow interest groups to form naturally. With a standardised protocol for exchanging messages, so there was no centralised owner of all data. And everyone pays for it implicitly through their ISP fees, like they do for other basic services like email or DNS. Instead of having their data milked, processed and fed back like some grotesque combination of Orwellian fiction and mad cow disease. That sounds like a much more civilised way to Use the Net. Maybe we could call it something like, I dunno, Usenet....?

reificator 8y ago

Upvoted

Apocryphon 8y ago

+1 insightful

markdown 8y ago

I'm not going to upvote you. But I agree with everything you've said and would like to show appreciation as well as let others know that I share your view: This! +1

MikeGale 8y ago

It seems tied to having a single bucket for everybody. I'd probably participate in some discussions if I couldn't see and wasn't involved in the likes, up/downvotes, brownie point scramble. If I just saw similarly inclined people there would be a different kind of discussion.

philipkglass 8y ago

I actually love the upvote/downvote mechanism here. An upvote takes the place of a low-content positive affirmation like "good explanation" or "I agree," which helpfully increases the content:filler ratio for other comment readers. A downvote takes the place of tiresome rebuttals to tedious arguments. If somebody posts "vaccines do cause autism" in a discussion about health care costs, I can just downvote and move on. Without downvotes, people are tempted to make the diversion worse by posting retorts ranging from "go away, troll" to several paragraphs of carefully cited rebuttal. Or if everyone manages to refrain from Feeding the Troll, then the bad comment appears to be just as worthy as every other comment that wasn't rebutted. From what I've seen of relatives who get sucked into lengthy arguments on Facebook, they can't break away because there is no downvote, and letting bad arguments sit otherwise-unchallenged looks like a (weak) endorsement from other participants.

robryan 8y ago

It really depends on the number of participants. A thousand comment thread could take an hour to properly read through every viewpoint. If we are only willing to spend a few minutes on that thread it needs some kind of filter. If there are only 5 participants in a thread though it is different. Traditional forums would be read like this, but were almost always at a much lower scale.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> Traditional forums would be read like this, but were almost always at a much lower scale. Yes, and at too large scales communication becomes less meaningful, you can't scale it to millions of people without getting something else. Even in large cities or at giant festivals, people tend to mingle in smaller groups, there's just more of those groups the larger the city or festival is, it's not like people stand around in ever larger circles, shouting louder and louder. Groups that get too big break up into smaller ones naturally because they start to noticeably suck.

jimmy1 8y ago

An obvious and famous counter-example to this argument is Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules For Life which actually was born out of one of the most popular and up-voted Quora answers. The problem is people have substituted their own critical thinking for a metric of varying quality (upvotes)

tlb 8y ago

Compared to the real world, where people make arguments around the table and others applaud, grunt, hoot, roll their eyes, etc., upvotes seem like a rather mild form of feedback. I don't think zero feedback is a good goal. Even with voting, forums exhibit a level of trolling and asshattery you'd never find if you had to watch people's live reactions to your statements. And not that much grandstanding, compared to, say, politicians in the media. That said, should HN add an option in your profile to hide comment scores? You could always get around it with some effort, but maybe not seeing the score right there would encourage you to comment for truth, beauty, and posterity, rather than upvotes.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> Compared to the real world, where people make arguments around the table and others applaud, grunt, hoot, roll their eyes, etc., upvotes seem like a rather mild form of feedback. That's the problem IMO, it's not just mild, it's nothing, yet weight is attached to it. In the real world, when you make a good argument and someone just rolls their eyes disapprovingly and grunts, you can go "What? What's your problem with what I just said?", and they can't possibly just pretend they're not there or didn't roll their eyes -- like people who downvote without reply often do, which gives them the false impression of having said something. When we don't like something, yet can't find any solid argument against it, that should do something with us, maybe teach us something, and votes are like the most optimized form of memes and other ways to not have to actually think, distilling it to the minimal essence, just a click. I'm not saying nobody thinks when voting, but the only requirement is an account and an input device, not actually thinking. Not so for "using one's words".

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

This is readily apparent if you go back even a few years and read old threads. We are rapidly losing things.