Exactly. The article reads like expressing displeasure is hampered. But if negative comments have increased, then that is a good thing, because at least the com

Exactly. The article reads like expressing displeasure is hampered. But if negative comments have increased, then that is a good thing, because at least the commenters have had to come out of the woodwork to express themselves. And then we can talk, if they actually have a point. Or we can upvote your point. Downvotes are anonymous slaps on the wrist with no recourse. They're insulting, offensive, and then further used for censorship (especially here). People who don't know what they're talking about, can't articulate themselves, or are just taking sides all get to punish what they don't like without being caught. They get to be taken seriously. By robots. The author of the article is a prolific writer. If anyone knows the importance of writing, even long-form writing, it would be him, and it's exactly what he used to make his point about downvotes. He could not have done it with a downvote, or even a tweet. Nuance is invaluable and context is king. Language gives us all of it. Twitter makes us stupid. Votes make us children. When expression is limited, the dumber - and more violent - we become.