PPPS: Here is a totally clarified title: An option to automatically block downvoters with configurable granularity for the scope of the block. See text for detail.
PS: By definition this was always going to attract downvotes, so I'll pay no attention to that. I just want to be clear about one thing: this proposed feature would (obviously) be read-only and opt-in. It is just a development of the existing block feature. It would affect nobody except those who choose to use it.
PPS: I was originally going to submit it to Lemmy issue tracker but I prefer not to use Microsoft Github so for now I'm putting it here instead.
This is a general proposal that concerns Lemmy specifically, but also other forum-alike software that uses ActivityPub, such as Piefed.
For me, the original sin of social media is downvoting (rant incoming). Specifically, its rampant misuse as a "Me no like!!" button. Apart from conveying totally uninteresting information (i.e. a subjective binary opinion), downvoting encourages schoolyard social dynamics and discourages heterodox views (and therefore debate). The nearest in-person equivalent (saying "shut up") is universally considered rude. At scale, the effect of downvoting is to brutalize a community that might otherwise be pleasant and welcoming. I believe this practice is almost always toxic and poisonous. Those who defend it (in good faith, I do not doubt) need to consider the possibility that it has helped to homogenize their communities into people like them (to caricature: insensitive males). Most ordinary people do not participate actively in social media. There's a reason for that.
No, this is not a popular position here (cf. selection bias) and so it will of course be... downvoted. But it's how I see it. I like to think that I've added some value to the fediverse with my contributions, but if there's one thing that regularly causes me to consider leaving, it's this. Going to Beehiv or Blahaj-whatsit is not a solution, because the communities I'm interested in are not there. Hiding downvote scores does not work because... it does not hide the downvoters.
Which gave me an idea. Given that the identity of downvoters is technically public, I propose a new setting: "Auto-block downvoters". That's it. Automatically hide comments (or posts, or anything) by users who have downvoted your contributions. Logical, no? They don't care for what I have to say, and I don't care for their inane negativity. It's win-win! Lots of possible variants:
- Hide [ subsequent | all ] comments by users who have downvoted [ a post | a comment | anything ] by you [ in this thread | on this post | in this community | everywhere]
- Hide [etc] by users with an upvote-downvote ratio lower than [ X ]% etc
Such a setting (especially #1) would immeasurably improve my experience of Lemmy. No exaggeration. I like to think it might also serve as a subtle incentive for users to be more generous and tolerant in their behavior towards others, but that is secondary.
Hello, i downvoted this because i strongly disagree, but that doesn't mean i'm not open to discuss this (are discussions not why platforms like this exist in the first place?). A downvote doesn't mean i don't care, like you suggest.
People should be allowed to agree AND disagree, and still be allowed to explain why they downvote.
I disagree with OP too, but I also think downvotes are not great for disagreement. I like them much more for marking something as wrong or off topic. Otherwise we just limit lemmy to a tool that finds the majority opinion, instead of being an actual discussion platform.
For example, OP starts a discussion and your comment that I disagree with is a legitimate opinion, so I won’t downvote either. But if someone tried to derail the discussion by commenting ramen recipes, I might downvote that.
it's probably impossible to get downvotes to be anything other than agree/disagree buttons at this point, but I like to dream of a world where it's for contributes-to-productive-conversation/mindless-nonsense-or-hate-speech.
Downvotes should only be for posts like
lol this ^I've never been able to imagine a system that could convince random users to use it like that, though.
So we agree in substance. Why then would you be against a feature that would allow you (entirely optionally) not to see the contributions of people who have marked your content as illegitimate? This is what I don't get.
I don't tend to believe in technical fixes, but this particular feature would really improve my experience here. Maybe yours, too.
Why should I not be free to hide comments by people who have openly declared that they prefer not to see mine?
If they preferred not to see your comment, they'd block you. That's how you not see someone's comments.
Downvotes are an indication for other people telling them "hey, this comment/post might be wrong/off-topic/stupid/offensive/etc".
Also people might downvote some of your comments, but upvote others. You know, because people have different opinions on things.
What you demand is: "I want to auto-block everyone that has ever disagreed with me on anything", which is not a very healthy position.
If you read my post, you'll see that's actually not what I'm demanding.
It literally is what you're demanding, though:
If I am asking to be able to block subsequent comments by a downvoter on this thread, then no, that is not a universal block. A feature that already exists - do you want it rolled back?
That is correct. If you ask to be able to block all comments by a downvoter everywhere then it is!
I'm not aware that this feature exists, but it if it does, then yes.
The feature I am talking about is just blocking. Personally, I do not use it precisely because it's permanent. So no, personally I'm not interested in permanently auto-blocking anyone who downvotes my contributions. But I can see why someone would be. Again: to downvote somebody who expresses their views in good faith - that is a hostile act. A micro-aggression, you might even call it. People here don't want to admit that, but it's true.
lol.
That I a agree with. Because a "micro-aggression" is a joke term used by PC principle in South Park that should never be taken seriously in the real world.
So if I was to downvote you within this thread, you would want this system to block me - but only comments by me within this thread?
The setting could have various permutations, but yes, that would be the one I personally would use. After all, downvoting my contribution you would kind of be declaring you don't care what I have to say.
Downvoters can disagree on something, hence the downvote. I don't mind seeing your post, because it opens a new discussion for a possible new feature. Now we can talk about whenever it is a good thing or not. And i simply think it is not.
Do you disagree on principle with any feature that might create a better experience for other users while changing nothing for you?
I disagree that this is a better experience for the user. I think it's perverse and unhealthy and will only serve to isolate the user and reinforce them into error in situations where they are incorrect or antisocial.
OK. But then you must disagree even more with the existing block feature, which is much worse in that regard than what I am proposing.
In this case, yes. Because next time i downvote something, i'm not allowed to explain why. How respectful i may be, you take away my freedom to share my opinion. On a open platform, of all... This is a place of discussions, criticism often is a part of that. Can't handle that? This place might not be for you.
I think you've missed how blocks work on the fedi. They don't silence the blockee, just hide them from the blockeur.
I think you're free to share your opinion, and he's free to ignore it if he wishes.
Yes, that's true. But what's the point of asking something to a community if you're not willing to handle criticism?
I love criticism. Downvotes are not criticism. Downvotes are "Muh! Shut up!" with the added effect of making your contribution less visible to third parties.
The feature would not block permanently, I agree that's unhealthy. BTW: I hardly block people at all, and I never downvote (literally never).
What seems incoherent to me in all this (completely predictable) pushback is that this feature would not affect anyone else's experience at all. People are already free to block you manually. Nobody is taking your freedom away. So why the opposition?