Because to me, they seem like de facto "Agree and “Disagree” buttons, whether or not it was the intent.
Yes. That’s how people use it, so that’s what it is. The original intention doesn’t matter.
They should be “this is worthy to be seen by many” and “this is not”. Sometimes that also overlaps with my agreement with the post.
This is how I use the vote arrows too.
I think I’ve gotten a little idealistic since moving to lemmy because I definitely used the votes as agree/disagree on Reddit, because it was clear that was what the hivemind decided it was for, who was I to argue.
In the olden days there was ‘reddiquette’ which still existed on smaller, non default subs. You’d downvote poor contributions and up vote good ones
It was literally in the reddiquette that you’re not supposed to use them like that, but in practice, you’re absolutely right and that’s how they’re used.
Upvote: I agree at least for the most part.
Downvote: I have problems with the general content, or the source of the content.
No vote: I’m not going to downvote you, but I don’t have to upvote you either.
No vote is the best way to let something just die out. Any sort of engagement would make it higher in the popular “hot” category so no action is the best for “this is shit and no one should see it”.
My upvotes are for posts I like, downvotes I don’t really use except when the content is factually wrong or misleading
I’ll use downvote if the person is overtly racist, homophobic or just mean. Name calling or being just unpleasant. It’s ok to not agree. It’s not ok to dehumanize someone for a different perspective.
That’s how I treat them. Maybe with a bit more nuance: I’ll upvote for something funny, informative things, or general good takes. I’ll downvote if someone has a bad take, is unnecessarily mean, or is generally incoherent.
If the comment doesn’t spark a reaction I just keep scrolling.
Often too I’ll upvote a highly downvoted comment because I don’t think it deserved to be downvoted as much as it was, even if it’s one I’d otherwise downvote. Unless it’s horrible, in which case I’ll pile the fuck on
It a comment was well thought out but I disagree, I comment or keep scrolling.
People are too lazy to do that, so they downvote.
What you say and what you describe are not the same. Your explanation is literally how it was explained on the other site. So you are better than you think you are. =)
And I do it the same as you. Something I disagree with or don’t like but is reasonably argued and not mean or full of any -isms? No vote from me.
Do you mean by seem that people here seem to use them like that, or that they just seem like that to you?
I try to reserve downvotes for people who are actively harming the discussion. Downvoting good comments just because you disagree is pretty shit behaviour, and I guess the same could be said about upvoting bad comments because you agree with the opinion.
I think this is the best answer?
I’ll also suggest that downvotes can be used for something that is actively wrong, as in deliberate, but I think it’s abused for people who may be ignorantly wrong but not maliciously so. Once the downvote train starts sometimes people can’t catch a break even if they make amends. Really does a disservice and disincentivizes to people’s ability to admit being wrong or learn something new.
people who may be ignorantly wrong but not maliciously so.
I think this one is a bit blurry anyway. If the person had every chance to learn, it’s on them.
Yeah, on the internet it’s really hard to tell if someone just doesn’t get it, is trolling, or is maliciously ignorant. Sometimes a quick check of their recent comments can reveal their MO and tell you who they are.
Practically yes, despite the way that they ought to be used.
It’s such a shame. Lemmy should be a place where we can collectively share ideas and debate openly. Comments and posts should only ever be downvoted if they’re off topic, hateful or misleading. However, in reality people get downvoted mostly because someone simply doesn’t like or wholly agree with them.
It’s still better here than reddits awful circlejerks and echo chambers, but not by much and we should be wary of devolving to a state where people are disincentivized to post because they have an idea or opinion that may only be slightly off kilter to the hive mind.
Just to let you know, you posted your reply 3 times. I downvoted the other 2 (consider deleting them).
Yes I noticed, sorry, bad internet connection, I have deleted them now.
There are many ways people use them.
The way I use them and I wish everyone did is:
Upvote = I agree with this, this is what I would have posted too if I had seen the comment earlier, this is extraordinarily funny or insightful and I want more people to see it
Downvote = I think this doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the discussion at all, it would have been better if it hadn’t been posted, others shouldn’t have to read it
The vast majority of things doesn’t fall into either of these categories, so I neither upvote nor downvote them; if I merely disagree with something, I write a counterargument but do not downvote.
I think there’s a shorter way to say this.
Upvote means promote. I think this should be seen.
Downvote means demote. I don’t think this should be seen.
Yes, but a lot of people “don’t think this should be seen” simply because they disagree with it, no matter how much of a good-faith on-topic post it is. That was a main point.
Which is what I’m kinda getting at. It’s always going to be up to the individual. Unfortunately there’s no way to force any kind of consensus.
It’s supposed to be about relevance and moderation of abusive content, not agreement, but that’s not usually the case.
"Agree and “Disagree” will just leave us in a Lemmy bubble.
They should be more about “good post or bad post”, so something that may be disagreeable gets upvotes if it is well stated.
Reward thought, creativity, etc, and let us all learn.
Agreed.
- Upvote: Adds to the community.
- Downvote: Doesn’t belong in this community.
They should be more about “good post or bad post”, so something that may be disagreeable gets upvotes if it is well stated.
I don’t care how well stated some anti-vax or flat-earth bullshit is … It’ll get downvoted regardless because I disagree.
That would just be misinformation, something downvote was intended for.
That would just be misinformation
Sure, according to us. But you don’t actually need to be right to think you’re right. If someone believes the earth is flat, they’ll downvote “globe-talk” as misinformation, just as it was intended! So it all just comes back to (dis)agreeing.
Of course, but these examples are provably false. Flat earthers have accidentally disproved themselves many times.
If they are just having a giggle then whatever, but some are serious and that is damaging to the legitimacy of science, which is a dangerous path.
If the poster is open to discussion, perhaps some chat could make them reconsider their position. So I wouldnt necessarily downvote. Context is important, so I still wont just use it as a disagree button.
I know and I chose those two examples to illustrate that people will even disagree with stuff that is blatantly factual. So it just gets worse if you enter murkier territory, like politics or ethics where there is no firm factual basis.
I’m sure you won’t have to search too long for a very well written post by some tanky about how a North Korean style dictatorship is superior to western democracy. Should you upvote it just because it’s well written, even if you think the idology is insane and dangerous?
Disagree
Downvoted
That would be nice but, no, it’s the agree/disagree button just like Reddit. There is honestly very little difference between Lemmy and reddit. Mostly just the numbers.
It wasn’t meant to be an agree/disagree button on Reddit either.
It’s meant for upvoting posts that contribute to the topic/community and downvoting stuff that doesn’t, such as spam or trolling.
fake activism button
dopamine button
I thought so too, but about a year ago or so this same question popped up, and some of the comments were really eye opening.
The essence of it was something like this: if you use the upvote/downvote buttons as agree/disagree, then you’re contributing to turning this platform into an echo chamber, which is the particular thing that makes social media such a shitty place.
You should use this feature on posts to indicate if it’s relevant to the community’s rules or not, meets the community’s guidelines or not, contains factual, useful information or not.
On comments, you should use it to indicate if it’s relevant to the topic or not, valid argument to what they’re replying to or not, regardless of your own opinion.
A great example someone commented was, when he explained they were browsing lemmy together with his girlfriend, they had a great laugh at a comment, and then he promptly downvoted it, to her surprise. And it’s because, even though the comment was fantastic, it was off topic, it wasn’t useful for the actual conversation.
Oh, and actually, there was a thing, even on Reddit - believe it or not - which acted as upvote/downvote guidelines, describing how you should use those buttons.
I’ll try to link the original post here if I find it.
Edit: Here’s the comment I was referring to on the original post: https://lemmy.world/comment/5219066
Interesting to read the comments, I was unaware anyone gave mich if a shit about posts, let alone how others might vote on them. I mean I don’t actually know anyone here.
I do hit the upvote occasioanly if a post was helpfu/usefull… to me. Conditioning is the only real explanation I have for that behaviour though.
It really depends on where you use them.
In some communities I’ll use upvotes as a way to track which posts I’ve seen.
In news communties I always downvote tabloid sources and clickbait headlines, regardless of content.
But when it comes to the comments, it’s mostly an agree/disagree button.
