• 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    No, votes should not be displayed public.

    Blocking those who downvote creates further polarisation, echo chambers and an environment more hostile to discussion and honest exchange.

    Following those who upvote creates personality cults and nepotism and devalues the content.

      • shadowbert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Redditors did that, rather than reddit I’d argue. Still the same result of becoming a far less useful heuristic though.

        Not really sure how to “fix” a system like that, which depends on the masses to do something correctly. They… don’t.

        • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          If users are the problem and the platform encourages/enables them to behave like that, then the problem is the platform. Redditors act that way because the system incentivizes it.

          • shadowbert@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            What alternatives to votes would you propose to handle this better? Because I have no doubt the same thing will happen here too…

            It’s just how people work, especially when things get heated. That said, perhaps that’s a poor example as a heated discussion isn’t necessary a helpful/constructive one…

            • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I already said: upvotes only, remove downvotes, votes are public. If we don’t have downvotes public voting is not as important. But if we insist on keeping them, then yes it should be public

              We also need people to be more accepting of stricter/heavier-handed moderation, which is a hard sell.

          • AchtungDrempels@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Or some self entitled 3rd party admin would do that just because they’d feel like people owed them explanations.

          • shadowbert@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            But… we had those on reddit. I didn’t see many actual examples of the “moderator gone power crazy” stereotype that is so often echoed there (especially by people who fully deserved the moderator action they received).

            The issue wasn’t that the rules were clear. The issue was that people refused to read them in the first place, and became hyper-defensive and obstinate whenever they were called out on it, even by moderators.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Maybe the upvotes should only be available to the person who owns the comment or post. Maybe to the mods and admins, too?

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Same idiots playing games with each others in the open is better than bots and manipulation going on behind the scenes.