Does the reddit style format inherently make for a toxic environment? Or is it a culture of toxicity from the influx of reditors? For lack of a beter example, on stackoverflow, when someone down votes you, it comes with a comment saying how to improve. On mastodon, people can't downvote you. These platforms are a joy to use, lemmy is depressing if you post. Its depressing because every post or comment, no mater the quality comes with downvotes, and usually no criticism to accompany it, you are left not knowing if youve made a mistake, or if its just trolls, bots, or idiots. At the end you feel insulted not improved. What do you think?
Mastodon was very depressing for me, this follower centric self presentation stuff is super not my style, it don't want it to be about me, I most likely suck but I say smart things some times, so I want it to be about the stuff I say.
Plus I don't mind being downvoted into oblivion. I actually think that this can be a good thing. It means that there was something at least controversial about what I posted so I might be wrong or have to argue better.
Lastly, mastodon is too much safe space and filter bubble. I want to read things from people that I disagree with and I want to argue with them in good faith. When I tried this on mastodon, I got misquoted, blocked, harassed... You name it.
I believe there are a few Lemmy instances that don't have downvotes enabled. (Beehaw might be one of them, but don't quote me on that.) If downvotes are a stress point for you, you could try joining one of those instances.
I personally find both upvotes and downvotes to be useful as a way for me to quickly see the community's reaction to a piece of content. If I'm scrolling through my feed and see a post with many downvotes and few upvotes, for example, I know that post is unlikely to interest me and will move on. Conversely, a highly upvoted post or one with a mix of both upvotes and downvotes is more likely to have a good conversation in the comments in my experience.
If I make a post that receives a large number of downvotes - or if most of my posts tend to be downvoted - that's a signal to me that I'm either not communicating my message well (confusing, passive aggressive, etc.) or that my message itself may not be welcome (hate speech, misinformation, etc.). In either case, I use that as a mental trigger for me to reflect on my posts rather than a reason to become unhappy with the community/platform as a whole.
I would also add that getting a post mass downvoted can be a sign that a community might not be a good fit for you.
Like, using reddit as an example, if you see someone spreading anti-lgbt hate and getting upvoted, but when you try to be like "Hey that's not cool" or explain why they're wrong you get massively downvoted, it can be a really good sign that maybe it's not a great place.
I agree, and I would extend this thought to also include situations where it's simply the wrong audience for your post. The content itself may not have anything wrong with it, but if you post a casual joke or comment without much depth in a community that's built on deep conversations and well thought out replies, for example, you're likely to be downvoted simply because the context wasn't appropriate.
I’m not trying to be negative here with you - but anyone complaining about downvoted will often get another downvote from me. Say what you want to say, stand by your convictions, and don’t worry about what the internet thinks about that.
I don’t see the poster explicitly complaining about getting downvoted. How I read it is that they think that downvoting encourages people to be negative and weaponise their downvote. And, given what you’ve said, they’re spot on and you inadvertently proved their point.
I saw the post more as someone who is too worried about what the group will think of their comment to allow for dissent.
That being said, what I meant about people who complain about downvotes was the old Reddit trope of “edit: really? Downvote me for asking a question?” On a comment less than an hour old.
Someone praising Stack Overflow, that's a new one. The most criticized thing about SO is the toxicity and elitism of the users. Downvoting almost always comes with no explanation there.
Well hold on there, im not tryna praise them. I think we need a free and federated alternative. I only mean to say that an answer always has some verbal feedback on it.
I barely posted on Reddit due to the thought of people hating what I said or posted 😊 I think here is more friendly since it’s not huge, I share what I like and if people don’t agree that’s cool! As long as it makes someone happy it’s worth it ✨
For lack of a beter example, on stackoverflow, when someone down votes you, it comes with a comment saying how to improve. ... These platforms are a joy to use
I don't know what part of the internet you are from, but where I am from, Stackoverflow is looked down on as the quintessential example of toxic behaviour.
I've found some of the most dismissive people in tiny stack exchange groups, and experienced similar unexplained downvotes.
What SO, Reddit, and Lemmy maybe all have in common I think, is people tend to agree or disagree based on their convictions, as opposed to agreeing or disagreeing as a means of interaction.
I guess this puts the conflict and disagreement front and center. But at least then I know where people stand.
Perhaps it's important to not take opinions too personally, and remember that incencere agreement has its own problems.
its strange because its not the disapproval that gets me, its not knowing why. I guess the lesson is that if someone did not even say why, its not really something anyone actually cared about.
I don't think the format had anything to do with it, considering it was much more like Lemmy is now when I first joined 11 years ago and I've seen the same decline in other social mediums that didn't share formats as Reddit. It's just what happens when you get enough people together in one place. The abundance of dumb fucks and bad actors simply take over.
I like the way it was here. Points seem to be working correctly or did. I think it's a bad idea to put point totals on a users profile for everyone to see. I don't think totals are or should be important. But upvotes and downvotes are indicators of how much value a reader thinks a post/comment has. You can't tell the temperature in a room without numbers. But I would rather not see a reddit-like karma system.
This is why I'm in favor. I'm not the hugest fan, but if the alternative is YouTube or facebooks like system then I'll take the downvotes. Otherwise you get the low quality like farms where minions memes are uploaded everywhere and there's no way to say "we hate these, stop posting them"
Yes, although your comment seems to me to be correct, it misses the point of the question, and the actual question has been answered quite well already by others. Surely the format is not in and of itself toxic, and I personally find it a little strange to think of a format as toxic, though I suppose one could create such a format. Rather, the question is weather the format of the website encourages or indues so called "toxic" behavior or leads to the perception there of, among groups of humans using software in the format in question. Maybe because "yearning for affirmation" is a near universal human trait and the format of the site provides its human users access to a convenient but unreliable metric by which they may measure the approval of their peers. Some of us suppress this drive for approval with to strong self awareness or self esteem or lack it entirely due to mental illness, but it is in almost every human, and of course, our need for approval is of course a double edged blade. It makes society possible, and makes us hate to take part at times.
Imo, downvotes is just a disagreement. Being offended by it sounds like a "you" problem, we all have to deal with it.
Upvotes normally give me answers I need for at that moment. Downvotes makes me reassess myself.
I dont think you must read to much into the downvotes. Understand the situation why people might have downvoted you, understand why other people get upvoted, assess the situation. And most of all, understand that not everybody will always agree with you
During my time on reddit, I've learnt to appreciate downvotes. Silent feedback is much better than passive-aggressive replies that serve no purpose other than letting the person vent out.
People on Lemmy try to rationalize that they'll use the downvote as intended (off topic content) but our ape brains eventually just make downvote = I don't like said thing.
I wish we could do away with upvotes and downvotes altogether.
For me it always was about "Do I want to see posts/comments like this?" If yes, upvote, if not, downvote, if I don't care, then nothing. Off-topic is for reporting to mods, not downvoting IMO.
I think having some form of "I agree with this" or similar helps to make you feel engaged with the content (for better or worse).
I think perhaps the actual person responsible for the post or comment shouldn't be able to see the results, though, otherwise it just becomes another ego building thing, and you see people strategising explicitly to build karma like on reddit. instead, the author should see a rating, like "slight approval" "mixed feelings" "strong dissent", etc.
How dare you. As a former redditor now lemming I would wilt into a shriveled, frail, incontinent, barely conscious entity without the ego-fueling fire of my all-powerful downvote.
I would always cringe so hard whenever I saw someone on reddit talking about downvotes, lack of upvotes, or karma at all. It's silly. Quit worrying about it.
Don't change the way you express yourself just to make yourself more acceptable to the internet hivemind. The internet is a toxic place. Lots of people simply find joy in anonymously hurting others. Just comment and move on. And maybe reply to comments that are made in good faith.
I don't think it's the format. Forums generally get toxic when they're too big. The negative influence of a toxic user is much greater than the positive influence of a non-toxic user. The bigger the user base the more toxic users. Eventually it gets to a critical mass where you're seeing enough toxic replies to make the whole platform seem toxic.
Reddit is 18 years old. Lots of time to attract toxic users. I wasn't on Reddit from the start, but people have said Reddit didn't suffer toxicity until after it was around 10 years old. Lemmy is four years old now so it will be a while. Though Lemmy may attract a smaller less toxic crowd and avoid toxicity indefinitely.
I don't have a high opinion of community at Stack Overflow as it started out elitist by nature of its policies and rules. Yeah that's going to breed toxicity right out of the gate. I have to admit Stack Overflow has been a really good resource for technical information at times, but its community is harsh. As much as I've used it to find good technical information, I've never made an account there or had any desire to post there.
That's a good point about toxic users having a bigger influence than non-toxic users.
It's easy to see a comment that you mostly agree with and just not upvote it. But seeing a comment that's factually incorrect or toxic will both welcome downvotes.
As a former Redditor, I can only say that I've not yet begun looking at votes. Why do you determine the value of your post based on that? Make your post, read and respond to people who comment and have a great day.
Richard Seymour talks about the dangers of social media platforms in The Twittering Machine. This isn't trifling. It leads to real harm. One factor is downvoting, as you say.
It's so easy to click it nonchalantly because you disagree. But to the person who only sees potentially thousands of downvotes, it can hit their mental health hard. Maybe this depends on the kind of content, but idk. I'd expect someone to feel more down if they're being genuine, giving advice about a hobby, something else that is personal in some way. This probably includes politics, as politics reflect values and can be wrapped up in a how someone sees themselves as a 'good person'; which makes it difficult if you're then made to think you're wildly off the mark and, possibly, a 'bad person'.
If downvotes are getting you down, you may want to reassess how you engage with social media. The best antidote is logging off for a while. Touch grass, get some fresh air. Don't engage with the communities that give you grief.
More broadly, yes, Reddit is toxic af. More so than many other places. Twitter can rival it at times but the format can take the sting out of some of the pile-ons. Some of that toxicity has come to the fediverse.
It's been especially noticeable since the API thing as new users have just seen the fediverse as a Reddit alternative. As in, Reddit but on a different server with a different brand name. Many seem not to have cared whether the culture is the same here. Or they haven't realised that an instance might have instance-wide rules (it's not only community rules that one must understand).
Up until the API thing, Redditors occasionally brought Reddit toxicity with them, but they were outnumbered and tended to change their ways or disappear. Now, they might get support for that kind of behaviour from other new users.
In fact, if you look at some of the user accounts of the people chastising you – for (a) being concerned out yours and others' wellbeing and (b) for wanting to improve/maintain a positive culture – or dismissing your concerns, they're new accounts, probably come from Reddit recently with some of that toxicity. Maybe this would have happened two months ago? I can't remember anything like it around here, though.
The only place on here that I've noticed downvotes is on comments that have been obviously social media shills (reddit or meta) or right wing type comments that are not the type of thing a community should support in my opinion. I'm not saying you're doing either of those things and if you're being downvoted in another context I don't know why.
That said, downvotes shouldn't really get you down. If you've said something awful then you deserve them and should reassess your outlook if you were unaware that your views or attitude were unpleasant. If you're getting downvoted on a tech related thing then I don't know what that's all about but I would try not to worry about it too much because it doesn't really affect your life, it's just a fake internet down arrow.
Thank you, interestingly the thing that prompted me to ask was a tech joke, all (4) down-votes, I removed a jab at Apple and added a picture and the the responses was positive. The lesson must be one of these: That we have mostly strong apple fans here; jokes need a picture even if it does not add anything; or people look at the vote total to decide their mindset while reading and the first vote was down by bad luck. Or some combination of these.
It is a problem of an Eternal September. Reddit was set up where the downvote was supposed to mean more than just disagreeing with people, but the influx of users, especially those only participating with Reddit by upvoting and downvoting, couldn't be taught what you were supposed to do.
It's a distilled version of 'the wisdom of the crowds'. With all the dog piling that comes with reactions to things that are pointed at the wrong audience. There's generally some people with baggage in there somewhere who will take issue, and you get downvoted.
However, what's always interesting about these platforms is where good ideas rise, where they come from, and how controversial they are, all of which you lose with the twitter/mastodon architecture.
It may be easier to find your crowd, but how useful is that to you depends on what you use your online presence for.
The karma/upvote/downvote system encourages engagement and gives users an idea of how others perceive their posts. It also encourages people to think about their posts and it helps keep garbage from clogging up the feed.
The problem is that posts are now “attention-centric” and that might lead to people posting stuff that’s more controversial or even “rage-bait” because it gets a reaction.
But honestly though, the toxicity was always there. It’s just that now people express it with an arrow click instead of a flame post calling out the OP’s mom.
I think anonymity or at least the perception of it on the internet breeds toxicity because it’s easier to hurt someone when neither party has to look each other in the eye.
IDK, I think most of the toxicity comes from when something gets popular. I never read much into the votes on reddit because it's usually more influenced by when you post than what you post. If you combined all the karma of my accounts it'd probably be in the millions but mostly I was just trying to either help people or make them laugh, never cared much about the points.
More seriously: downvotes can be disabled on Lemmy instances on an instance-by-instance basis. I have them disabled on mine, for example, because I too find them difficult to deal with. If you don't like downvotes, that could be an easy solution for you.
I think that the current downvote system is far from ideal, and ideally there should have some piece of "forced" feedback when you downvote someone, but keep in mind that a downvote is just "this should be less visible". For example, people often downvote OK answers because an even better answer popped up, and they want the later to rise to the top. So a lot of times there's no actual hostility in the downvotes.
And for other Reddit behaviours that people often call toxic (I call them SNOO - stupid, noisy, obnoxious, obtuse), I think that it's cultural. The Reddit admins bred that behaviour into the users; and users are likely to carry it with them elsewhere, including Lemmy. I think that most of those individuals will get better over time here, and the ones who don't will end leaving.
I feel like the issue with forced feedback when you downvote is you'll get a lot of comments where its just 1-2 words, doesn't say much, just a "No" or "Bad". And if you require a min characters like the bneg forums you'll just get "No. 10chars"
Requiring comments will cause people to half ass it at best, I think. Which, sure then people can downvote them, but are people going to write a well thought out comment for every "No"?
Is having 40 "I disagree" comments really better for discussion than just 40 downvotes?
By "forced feedback" I was thinking more like having multiple types of downvote ("off-topic", "rude", "incorrect", "I disagree", "unfunny"...), so users need to pick one when downvoting something. It gives people a better clue on why a certain piece of content is being downvoted than just letting them assume, and it's way less noise than 40 "I disagree" comments.