- cross-posted to:
- askchapo@hexbear.net
- fediverse@lm.korako.me
- cross-posted to:
- askchapo@hexbear.net
- fediverse@lm.korako.me
Probably better to post in the github issue rather than replying here.
Probably better to post in the github issue rather than replying here.
I saw some other’s commenting about “private ballot boxes” but I think that’s a false equivalency. You Vote in a democracy on policy and representation, not discourse. You’re basically saying your upvote/downvote is being used to police conversation and who you think best represents you.
It has similarities though, as pointed out in orher comments. For one, a user might be more careful with downvotes if they are afraid of negative consequences e.g. harassment. With piblic votes, there would therefore be a bias towards upvotes and and people abstaining from downvotes, i.e. less interaction in total.
Downvotes serve a purpose today, letting us quickly scan which comments are controversial or even harmful to the conversation. I, for one, usually sort most threads by votes and then skip the comments with many downvotes but for controversial topics, I instead seek out the comments that have both many upvotes and downvotes.
These would be harder to find given the above bias.
I agree it would lead to less interaction, but the interaction lost would only be downvotes being used as a disagree button. No one is going to get harassed for downvoting a bot posting an ad or someone just completely off-topic, that which the downvote is suppose to be used for. In your scenario you point out that the comments you seek out have so many upvotes-downvotes because it’s controversial, not that it doesn’t add to the discussion.