164
X weighs adding a downvote button to replies — but it doesn't want to emulate Reddit
(techcrunch.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
164 points (89.4% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
3767 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure they can. Moderators/admins can remove comments. If you’re talking about just things thrown out on Facebook, at some point people need to unfriend/block people they don’t want to associate with, because unfortunately Facebook et al are never going to do what needs to be done.
I agree with you there is a problem of content moderation. But downvotes are not the solution and have never proven to be an effective deterrent. Removal/deplatforming is the only tool that has proven consistently effective. It’s why on a discord server i help run we have very low tolerance towards people who are sufficiently disruptive or have a chilling effect on conversations, even if they aren’t breaking the letter of the law. At some point you just have to get rid of these people or they cause a disproportionate amount of damage. It’s amazing what 5 people can do to a community of 500.
And before somebody goes on some rant about power-hungry mods and uses some example of how they were “banned for literally no reason“ where they probably did something but won’t show us what happened, the community actually really likes the way we do things and we only end up booting a couple of people a year because we have a handle on it lol
You don't even need "power hungry mods" for that to go wrong, you just need mods who don't care. That's EXACTLY where Facebook and Twitter are right now. Getting content removed there is basically impossible, I've reported people for death threats and was told they never violated community standards.
If the platform isn't going to moderate itself, the users should be able to.
On Facebook I had a few death threats. One was a fucking doctor. He described in detail how he would murder me and it was disturbing as fuck. I posted screenshots of the conversation on his yelp page and reported him on Facebook. Yelp swiftly took those down and I don't think Facebook ever did anything about his psychotic threats. Meanwhile I was banned from groups and temporarily from the platform several times for telling proud bigots they are pieces of shit.
They eventually permanently banned me from Facebook for posting that image of supposedly naked Donald Trump. The kicker was they did it like a year after I posted it. That platform is absolutely horrific with moderation. Basically if you support violence and genocide you're fine but if you curse at people who do you're not fine at all.
But users can. They can block people, they can block communities, they have all kinds of autonomy. It’s not complete yet but we do have tools.
I am not saying users should not be able to control what they see. I am saying that the downvote mechanism specifically is ineffective. If you have other ideas I am super down to hear them because I find this subject fascinating and I am always in favor of everyone across-the-board having control over what is in front of them and not unfeeling algorithms that only prioritize engagement.
that's fine for a small discord group but it doesn't scale. you can't be that active in moderating millions of conversations.
downvotes (and hiding downvoted comments) is a community-driven way of signaling unacceptable behavior. it largely works, except in echo chambers.
But that isn’t how it’s used at all. It’s used as a disagree/crowd vibe button. Name one site where the downvote button actually separates wheat from the chaff and doesn’t 1) just signal disagreement and/or 2) just create astroturfing opportunities.
Also, if your community is too big to moderate, then you need to close the doors or add more people to run it. I’ve never liked the excuse of “too big to control.“ If it’s too big, then stop growing.
There's legitimate uses for downvotes but you seem to take issue with people using it to express disagreement. My question is why does that bother you? There's lots of reasons why that could happen, some valid and some not. Disagreement isn't usually supposed to signal that you're a piece of shit or however else you seem to be interpreting it. It just means the people who read your comment don't share your view but you don't even know who they are so who cares. It's a minor thing. It's equivalent to telling a joke to your friends and no one laughs. Big fucking deal, life goes on.
Because if downvotes are used to express disagreement then all it does is sort by “things agreed on by the first people in this community that saw it.” In fact many sites (like Reddit) explicitly say that’s not what it’s there for.
Is that how most forums and communities should operate to you? Do you believe that’s how we should sort things? If so then I simply disagree with that notion and there’s not much more to say. If you don’t, then there’s your answer.
I'm going to jump in and say that the real question isn't "is the disagree button bad" the real question is, "is the disagree button worse than not having it"?
I don't use downvote to disagree. I know some people do. But on Lemmy I've seen so many times awful comments with positive up notes bc no one is downvoting and hiding them
That’s not really the question either. The question is “why do we have a downvote button/what do we hope it accomplishes?”
If your goal is to have an agree/disagree binary to sort all content, then power to you because that is how it is used. But a lot of people, not just myself, don’t want that.
I disagree with "that is how it will be used" because that is not the only way people use it. Self-moderation is more of a pro than agree/disagree is a con.
Self moderation clearly isn’t working if you ask me. Otherwise we wouldn’t have mods in the first place.
I also didn’t say it was the exclusive usage but it’s certainly the dominant one.
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. It's not either or, you have downvoting and mods working together
Let’s kind of refocus here because there are 3 things at play.
1: What do you think we need downvotes for, 2: do you think that’s how they’re being used, and 3: are there better tools to accomplish #1?
After that it’s an assessment of other potential cons.
I think we disagree on 1. I think we need them for signaling what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, but you do not think this is necessary 2. We disagree on this, with me thinking that it is used enough to be useful and you thinking it is not. 3. We disagree on this as well: I don't think it's sustainable or healthy for mods to shoulder this burden alone in a reddit-style format. Exceptions being perhaps ask-historians who have a very hardworking (volunteer) team and a very niche focus.
Now to make the strongest counter argument against myself: I've been to some popular subreddits where some awful things are upvoted a lot, and contrary takes are downvoted. But even this is not too bad because it just signals to me that I don't want to be part of that community, and find somewhere that's more in alignment with how I want voting to be used.
To make the argument for downvoting, on other subreddits I've seen comments with -10, and when I open them I see they were trolling/abuse or something, and it confirms my confidence in that community that the overwhelming majority of people do not want to allow that comment, vs just one mod minimizing it, or removing it completely.
Let me know what your think
I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not downvotes should be used to signal disagreement but I don't think there's much point in debating that because that's how they are used. It seems like the only options are coming to terms with that or not using sites that have the option to downvote. I really don't think it's that big of a deal though. If someone doesn't know how to disagree with others without it ruining their day then they need to learn that skill anyway.
It’s totally worth debating it because we could simply not have downvotes or at least hide vote scores. That changes people’s behavior demonstrably.
I disagree. Have I ruined your mood now or do I have to actually downvote you for it to work?
I can see we’re well past the point of productivity then. Have a good weekend, truly.
I mean it was mostly a joke but it's also semi serious. You seem capable of disagreement without it bothering you much so I don't get why the number next to a comment is different. Yeah some people use it in a dumb way but that's true of pretty much everything.
Believe it or not I actually want to create forums/communities where the cream does rise to the top and everyone feels safe/welcome at all times, so I have a lot of opinions on how they should be run. Voting systems (or lack there of!) are critical for how things operate and meaningfully impact everyone’s experience, so it matters to me.
And at the end of the day, why shouldn’t I care?
You're obviously allowed to care and to express that. I hope you don't hear me saying that I think you're dumb or anything like that. In fact it's pretty much the exact opposite. Most of the time when I see people complain about downvotes they're trolls upset that it hampers their ability to be a troll but you seem like a reasonable person so I am simply seeking to better understand your perspective.
To put it another way I agree with your first sentence but I don't generally feel like visible downvotes prevents that from happening. I actually think downvotes function to encourage good discussion more often than not. That isn't true in all cases but it seems easier to be discouraged or get the wrong idea about prevailing sentiments if the dumb comments are just sitting there next to the good comments with no indication that a majority of other users also think they're dumb.
I don’t really agree but I appreciate you’re laying out your stance and giving me something to consider anyway :)
On Xitter? HA! They fired them first. It’s . . . mmmmm not a priority.