vote brigading is one part of it, but another influence of this decision comes from Tildes, where the emphasis is on quality of discussion and the site accordingly has feedback mechanisms to reflect this–most prominently in lacking a downvote button. (although i should also note we’re going for a more laid-back attitude than Tildes has.) while i’m sure there’s a theoretical way to minimize their impact while maintaining their function, downvotes can easily be used to artificially sway opinion, punish unpopular opinions, etc, and their utility is actually somewhat minimal as a website feature and community control mechanism.

the going theory in removing them therefore is that to express disagreement, you’ll have to at least put some thought into why you disagree with a post, and ideally that will be expressed in the form of a comment which can be used as a further jumping off point for conversation and dialogue. (alternatively, i guess, you could also just accept a disagreement as not necessarily worth your or another person’s time, and move on.)

[–] frogman 13 points 1 year ago

i think platforms like youtube strongly benefit from a like/dislike system because it performs an entirely different function. beehaw is about conversation and dialogue. the way that the downvote button is used on these types of platforms disincentivises meaningful dialogue and silences unpopular opinions, which in turn can further silence minority groups. that's not what we want here.

there's arguments for both sides, but i really like the lack of a downvote button here.

[–] small44 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because people try to silence opinions with downvotes and some even troll by downvoting anything

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People will pile on to an already downvoted comment as well so there's a sort of negative momentum that's not really conducive to a friendly discussion.

[–] milkytoast 4 points 1 year ago

i guess yeah. although it was funny to see every fourth comment downvotes to shit on r/shitposting

[–] alyaza 12 points 1 year ago

the answer has been posted here a few times so i'll just add: this is just a design choice you can vibe with or not, and we don't take it personally if you don't vibe with it and leave the instance over it. the ability to vote with your feet as to what community you'd like to make your homebase is one of the key points of the fediverse, and we're not trying to be everyone's cup of tea here.

[–] RGB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pulling a YouTube over here I guess.

[–] milkytoast 3 points 1 year ago

well YouTube still allows them and u can use return YouTube dislike

[–] rs5th@lemmy.scottlabs.io 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The admins have a comment about that here, copied below:

vote brigading is one part of it, but another influence of this decision comes from Tildes, where the emphasis is on quality of discussion and the site accordingly has feedback mechanisms to reflect this–most prominently in lacking a downvote button. (although i should also note we’re going for a more laid-back attitude than Tildes has.) while i’m sure there’s a theoretical way to minimize their impact while maintaining their function, downvotes can easily be used to artificially sway opinion, punish unpopular opinions, etc, and their utility is actually somewhat minimal as a website feature and community control mechanism. the going theory in removing them therefore is that to express disagreement, you’ll have to at least put some thought into why you disagree with a post, and ideally that will be expressed in the form of a comment which can be used as a further jumping off point for conversation and dialogue. (alternatively, i guess, you could also just accept a disagreement as not necessarily worth your or another person’s time, and move on.)

[–] RGB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This can also go the same way for upvotes. If you have to put some thought into a disagreement you should do the same for agreement. So upvotes should be removed too so the platform just operates on voiced agreement or disagreement in the comments.

[–] alyaza 5 points 1 year ago

This can also go the same way for upvotes. If you have to put some thought into a disagreement you should do the same for agreement. So upvotes should be removed too so the platform just operates on voiced agreement or disagreement in the comments.

well, even if we wanted to do this we couldn't--it's not toggleable on our end. but if you want to get a simulacrum of this experience i believe that's essentially what turning off scores does, which you can do in your user settings.

[–] lyam23 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a still a need to surface and prioritize good discussion. Upvotes remain a pretty good way of doing this, especially when removing the downvotes.

[–] RGB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why not surface communities based on activity. As in how active the comments section is. That way agreements and disagreements are weighed equally.

[–] lyam23 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd be interested in seeing that experiment in the comment section. It could be implemented with another filter (similar to the "Activity" filter in the post listing, I'd guess). Still, this wouldn't present a qualitative difference between "good" and "bad" discussion. But it might surface "interesting" discussion for a certain type of member.

[–] frogman 5 points 1 year ago

i feel like this incentivises 'controversial' posting. content that is designed to illicit a response, good or bad. i feel like this is another avenue to creating an inflammatory space.