i mean tbh the value someone sees depends on their perspective and is inherently tied to agreement.
e.g. I would downvote anything I recognise as primarily genai content because I don’t see value in it. But I only don’t see value in it because I am against it morally and disagree with it.
I’ll preface this by saying I am/was a Reddit user since its first year operating in 2005/2006.
The notion that reality is entirely subjective is relatively new and I believe has led to a myriad of consequences across society from social media to journalism to politics. Even if we will never arrive at a future in which we can all acknowledge what a spade is, we should absolutely continue to strive for that. Common understanding is the bedrock of liberal societies. We need it for science and democracy to function.
The “Redditquette” the user above explained was the notion that disagreement isn’t invalid. By this I am referring to the philosophical distinction between valid and invalid arguments. For example:
Every dog is a reptile.
Every reptile is cold-blooded.
Therefore, every dog is cold-blooded.
This argument is silly and easily disproved, but valid. Flat Earthers often make valid but easily disproved arguments, and there is much to gain in the world by people having valid discussions with one another. Especially from a curious and open position.
On the other hand, invalid arguments are those in whose conclusion is not proven by its premises. That is, even if all the premises are true, the conclusion could still be false. For example:
Being friendly is the easiest way to make friends quickly.
Alana has a lot of friends.
Therefore, Alana must be very friendly.
The argument tells us that being friendly is one way to make friends, but is that the only way? And does having a lot of friends necessarily mean that you are very friendly? Although Alana might be very friendly, the author hasn’t proven that she is. There is nothing to gain by engaging with this, other than to potentially educate someone about valid and invalid arguments. However this rarely works out well over the internet. This is an opinion masquerading as reason or fact. Trolling uses some variation of this.
Reddiquette was intended to encourage healthy discussion without immediately devolving into insults and death threats. It actually worked really fucking well, for many years. In the early days, the administrators would enforce Rediquette, as crazy as that sounds. They would give out warnings for people downvoting earnest comments and submissions. Some of the better moderated subreddits still maintain a shadow of this, but they don’t have the tools to see who is up/downvoting what.
Unfortunately there is some game theory in this. If the rules are “downvote what you don’t like,” then both sides of any debate must use this rule, or their comments will be permanently hidden, and their ideas will never propagate. The evidence is that this rule is quite devastating for online discourse, and I miss old Reddit.
Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No, originally they were supposed to be for content that contributes and added value, even if you didn’t agree:
But the amount of “came here to say this” and “haha epic updoot for you sir” has made it pretty clear that the karma whoring was for agreement.
It’s the reason there are echo chambers now.
Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
i mean tbh the value someone sees depends on their perspective and is inherently tied to agreement.
e.g. I would downvote anything I recognise as primarily genai content because I don’t see value in it. But I only don’t see value in it because I am against it morally and disagree with it.
Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You’re right. Reddit was naive to expect that people would give a positive value to something they inherently disagreed with.
Of course, now they’re going to punish people who agree with things that Reddit doesn’t agree with.
JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
I’ll preface this by saying I am/was a Reddit user since its first year operating in 2005/2006.
The notion that reality is entirely subjective is relatively new and I believe has led to a myriad of consequences across society from social media to journalism to politics. Even if we will never arrive at a future in which we can all acknowledge what a spade is, we should absolutely continue to strive for that. Common understanding is the bedrock of liberal societies. We need it for science and democracy to function.
The “Redditquette” the user above explained was the notion that disagreement isn’t invalid. By this I am referring to the philosophical distinction between valid and invalid arguments. For example:
This argument is silly and easily disproved, but valid. Flat Earthers often make valid but easily disproved arguments, and there is much to gain in the world by people having valid discussions with one another. Especially from a curious and open position.
On the other hand, invalid arguments are those in whose conclusion is not proven by its premises. That is, even if all the premises are true, the conclusion could still be false. For example:
The argument tells us that being friendly is one way to make friends, but is that the only way? And does having a lot of friends necessarily mean that you are very friendly? Although Alana might be very friendly, the author hasn’t proven that she is. There is nothing to gain by engaging with this, other than to potentially educate someone about valid and invalid arguments. However this rarely works out well over the internet. This is an opinion masquerading as reason or fact. Trolling uses some variation of this.
Reddiquette was intended to encourage healthy discussion without immediately devolving into insults and death threats. It actually worked really fucking well, for many years. In the early days, the administrators would enforce Rediquette, as crazy as that sounds. They would give out warnings for people downvoting earnest comments and submissions. Some of the better moderated subreddits still maintain a shadow of this, but they don’t have the tools to see who is up/downvoting what.
Unfortunately there is some game theory in this. If the rules are “downvote what you don’t like,” then both sides of any debate must use this rule, or their comments will be permanently hidden, and their ideas will never propagate. The evidence is that this rule is quite devastating for online discourse, and I miss old Reddit.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
uhhh the parable of the cave?
RagnarokOnline@programming.dev 1 month ago
The original intent is what my understanding was and why I don’t upvote reposts across multiple communities.
Just a few moments ago I upvoted a post that I didn’t “like” because the discourse on it was so good.
…There’s definitely stuff I still hate-downvote tho 😈