3 ms·
I've come to the opposite conclusion about downvoting. To me, downvoting is the most useful to people with an agenda to push. They can "push" the agenda by both
by daenz 6y ago
I've come to the opposite conclusion about downvoting. To me, downvoting is the most useful to people with an agenda to push. They can "push" the agenda by both upvoting posts that support it and downvoting posts that are against it, regardless of post quality. Either action is equally beneficial for the narrative. It essentially gives people two upvotes. Normal users, not trying to push an agenda, do not have this "two upvote" advantage, since they are generally not upvoting/downvoting content in a narrative-consistent way.
- flyinglizard 6y agoIf you take that view, then it appears downvoting is much more potent than upvoting. An upvoted post would at most rise to the top of its tree, but a downvoted post will eventually disappear.
- chrisco255 6y agoWhat I like about HN's approach is that the comment's score is hidden from the public, so you don't as often get the dogpiling effect.
- Chris2048 6y agoYou are also encouraged not to give feedback in such cases, as I believe you cannot up/down-vote threads you participate in?