I sometimes post news articles that examine possible problems in society. Some may agree with the author, some may disagree. I often see these posts being downvoted if many disagree with the author.
Why do you downvote the post instead of commenting to express your disagreement?
As far as I understand, the idea is to upvote the post to spur conversation and comment to express your agreement or disagreement. Or did I misunderstand something?
I downvote fash talking points. Because obviously I do.
That’s not a sly jab at you, I can’t see anything objectionable in your post history. But I would guess a lot of people have different ideas about what talking points are bogus, or what counts as news, or maybe they’re just trying to bury a repost that has already taken off elsewhere. You don’t really have any way of knowing why they’re downvoting.
Is the downvote not for disagreeing? I don’t have time to comment on every post I see.
I see the whole system as kind of flawed, like. If I think some topic or post is total bullshit and frankly, wrong, I’m supposed to comment to disagree with it, driving it further up in activity. So let’s imagine a platform where everyone uses the system “how they’re supposed to” and there’s a post about blatant bullshit, supporting nazi ideology or some shit like that (exaggerated, but for a point) and it’s dressed in the clothes of a well-mannered, discussion provoking post, and it gets a billion comments all disagreeing and it gets to the most active posts just because of this. When if it was downvoted, it’d just be more ignored the more people disagree with it.
I get the intention behind the reasoning for it, but it just doesn’t work like that, because the whole system is flawed. The most active posts would be filled with thinly veiled and not so thinly veiled, even clever, ragebait and bullshit.
As much as I hate to see “tHe hIvEmInD” and brigaders flood posts and comments with actual, relevant conversation and takes, with this system we’re just gonna have to deal with it I guess.
If a Nazi expresses their opinion in a civil manner and lots of other people express why they disagree with it, then… what exactly is the problem with the post getting attention?
Why give a nazi the stage? Why raise their opinions there? The points are and have been expressed in a civil manner for at least a century.
“If a holocaust denialist expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view more attention”
“If a pedophile expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view more attention”
“If a rapist expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view more attention”
“If a misogynist/misandrist expresses their opinion in a civil manner why not give their point of view attention”
If this is seriously an issue you have a dilemma with I have nothing further to say to you.
These kinds of points of view get enough attention as it is. No one needs to give them any more.
Because if you use force to suppress people’s opinions instead of rationally arguing with them, it gives the impression that they may have a good point.
I’d ask why you care about fake internet points so much. If you want to share a link for a discussion, fine then do so, but if you are worried about meaningless up/down votes why?
i care about fake internet points because i want to share things people like. if they don’t like it, i’ll enjoy it myself, but i won’t bother sharing it
