2 ms·

It's a widespread phenomenon, though I don't know whether it's widely observed. My observation is that "downvote to oblivion" (e.g. hidden or grey) seems to fa

It's a widespread phenomenon, though I don't know whether it's widely observed. My observation is that "downvote to oblivion" (e.g. hidden or grey) seems to facilitate and incentivize upvote/downvote wars/brigading where one side tries to erase its opposition rather than letting it just sink on its own. In practice downvoting seems to mostly be a "dislike" button. Personally I'd prefer an upvote-only system or at least downvotes that are organized by specific category such as spam, trolling, or flamebait. I'm not even sure that off-topic posts outside of those categories should be downvoted - I would expect other posts to rise above them organically in most cases. A final reason why I like upvotes rather than downvotes is that it seems to emphasize the positive rather than the negative, and people might feel better getting few upvotes vs. lots of downvotes. I've made many carefully thought out posts here and elsewhere that get downvoted immediately; it left me feeling puzzled and demoralized. I try to avoid downvoting, yet I too feel the temptation whenever the button is there.

fragmede 4y ago
without downvotes comments putting comments into the gray and dead, bad/wrong advice/information look totally legitimate and become part of the conversation. it's quite unfortunate that differing opinions get caught up in this but the site doesn't need a treatise on every article as to why we didn't actually make it to the moon, or that Bill Gates put microchips in the vaccine. You can turn on "show dead" in your profile to see what kind of dreck gets filtered out. You can also vouch for a comment if it's unfairly been downvoted.
- version_five 4y ago
  > bad/wrong advice/information look totally legitimate and become part of the conversation Ironically, I don't think that's correct. HN is good because the signal-to-noise is very high, and comments that violate guidelines or otherwise don't meet community standards get downvoted. While contrarian opinions may get caught up in that, the goal is not to suppress "misinformation" which is mostly only a pretend political problem anyway. On forums like this, even the strawman of "the average person isn't smart enough to be allowed to think for themselves" which is used to justify censoring bigger platforms doesn't apply. People can easily make up their own minds. Downvoting is about community standards, not misinformation policing.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Downvoting helps maintain community standards and also makes it so that people don't have to waste as much time policing/correcting misinformation. Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. We'll likely just have to agree to disagree on misinformation being a "pretend" problem, and it's understandable if your perspective means you don't consider the downvote's utility in fighting against misinformation important, but I'm glad for it.
    - Jcowell 4y ago
      > Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. How can you tell the difference between someone being plain wrong and misinformation? Are they not one in the same?
      - musicale 4y ago
        The connotation I have is: information that is incorrect, yet widely believed and frequently cited, such as "It's illegal to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater."[1] The dictionary definition seems to include deliberate misinformation for deceptive purposes, but I might call that "disinformation" instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
        autoexec 4y ago
        You're right, disinformation is the currently preferred. I guess it still sounds strange to me outside of a Soviet context.
lost_tourist 4y ago
I would appreciate downvote buttons if they were for misinformation rather than "I don't like what you said" so in general I'm happy with removal of downvotes. I liked it when they removed showing downvotes on youtube. Personally I never downvote at all on HN or reddit. I'd rather things just float to the top and others sink

fragmede 4y ago

without downvotes comments putting comments into the gray and dead, bad/wrong advice/information look totally legitimate and become part of the conversation. it's quite unfortunate that differing opinions get caught up in this but the site doesn't need a treatise on every article as to why we didn't actually make it to the moon, or that Bill Gates put microchips in the vaccine. You can turn on "show dead" in your profile to see what kind of dreck gets filtered out. You can also vouch for a comment if it's unfairly been downvoted.

version_five 4y ago
> bad/wrong advice/information look totally legitimate and become part of the conversation Ironically, I don't think that's correct. HN is good because the signal-to-noise is very high, and comments that violate guidelines or otherwise don't meet community standards get downvoted. While contrarian opinions may get caught up in that, the goal is not to suppress "misinformation" which is mostly only a pretend political problem anyway. On forums like this, even the strawman of "the average person isn't smart enough to be allowed to think for themselves" which is used to justify censoring bigger platforms doesn't apply. People can easily make up their own minds. Downvoting is about community standards, not misinformation policing.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Downvoting helps maintain community standards and also makes it so that people don't have to waste as much time policing/correcting misinformation. Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. We'll likely just have to agree to disagree on misinformation being a "pretend" problem, and it's understandable if your perspective means you don't consider the downvote's utility in fighting against misinformation important, but I'm glad for it.
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    > Obviously if someone is just plain wrong about something they should be corrected and not downvoted for it, but when someone posts misinformation it's nice that it can be downvoted out of sight fast enough that it's gone before many people are exposed to it and before a bunch of people have spent their time posting facts/corrections or providing critical context for the benefit of others. How can you tell the difference between someone being plain wrong and misinformation? Are they not one in the same?
    - musicale 4y ago
      The connotation I have is: information that is incorrect, yet widely believed and frequently cited, such as "It's illegal to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater."[1] The dictionary definition seems to include deliberate misinformation for deceptive purposes, but I might call that "disinformation" instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
      - autoexec 4y ago
        You're right, disinformation is the currently preferred. I guess it still sounds strange to me outside of a Soviet context.

lost_tourist 4y ago

I would appreciate downvote buttons if they were for misinformation rather than "I don't like what you said" so in general I'm happy with removal of downvotes. I liked it when they removed showing downvotes on youtube. Personally I never downvote at all on HN or reddit. I'd rather things just float to the top and others sink