Comment

you can’t downvote just wrong information anymore.

If “wrong information” can be properly defined, then either you challenge it (by responding, calling it out) or by reporting it. Downvoting it just because it you think it is not appropriate is a recipe for creating echo chambers.

source

Sort:hotnew top

last_philosopher@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The problem then is that by responding, you’re engaging with it which typically helps it spread in the algorithm. Ideally there’s should be multiple downvote options - maybe separate it out as “misinformation” or “bad opinion” or something. Removing downvotes and banning users who disagree is the typical cult strategy (recall the classic cult sub, r/thedonald). If you’re worried about downvotes being used to silence people, maybe another way to mitigate that would be a “sort by downvoted” option.

source
- rglullis@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  The problem then is that by responding, you’re engaging with it which typically helps it spread in the algorithms*
  
  But then the solution is to fix “the algorithms”. One more reason that I should say we should get rid of “votes” is that they are an artificial constraint created by the closed social media platforms that gate-keep and limit user choice. If “the alogorithms” are plentiful, easy to customize, and chosen by the user, then everyone is able to rank and sort the data as they see fit.
  
  Removing downvotes and banning users who disagree is the typical cult strategy
  
  The only ones with power to remove contents are moderators and admins. If moderation is transparent (as it should be), then it is easy to figure out if mods are are acting in good faith and according to the interests with the community. Then it is up to us as users to figure out if we should continue participating in that community or leave it behiind.
  
  source