no, sometimes people suck and deserve to have their sentiment downvoted - at least on a site where voting has to exist

on proper forums where there is no voting, there are better ways to discourage behavior, like just ignoring the user / posts. but if the buttons are there you want to click them

Absolutely not. It is misleading like on YouTube. Before they removed downvotes everyone could see if a video is useful or not. “Best tips and tricks for car repair” … 15341 upvotes? Nice! Maybe it’s helpfu–… 98412 downvotes? Maybe not THAT helpful.

I far prefer it to be transparent. But its good that instances can make the decision for themselves.

imo we should 100% keep downvotes, how else would we shame bigoted opinions?

If someone’s mental health is impacted that greatly from viewing a number on the internet, and they consider that bullying, then that person has some work to do on themselves instead of the website having to do some work to change something for every single person on the website.

If that is someones preference, then their answer is really simple already - use another Lemmy instance that hides them.

I saw my first anti-trans meme on lemmy.ml today. It was a screenshot from a Babylon Bee article.

On Reddit, I didn’t like how much things would get downvoted if the sub didn’t want to hear them. It really strengthened the hive mind. At the same time, it was an organic way of rejecting garbage like anti trans memes.

I feel mixed about whether or not they add to a community. I’m not worried about bullying, but I am worried about how they shut down ideas, and encourage everyone to think the same way.

I’m not a fan personally, I’ve never really cared about old Reddit cliches like “the hivemind” or “downvotes = disagreement”. I just really liked being able to tell bad content to fuck off without getting into a flame war. Beehaw’s moderation against hate speech is why I’m still with it despite the no downvote settings

I like it today. Depends on how judicious mods are with bans. If there’s a genuine threat of being banned for not be(e)ing nice, it may not matter. But if these communities ever reach the size of something like Reddit, downvotes may actually have a place.

I feel that downvotes / dislikes don’t contribute in large forum-style communities. The “proper” use of them is very useful, but the “improper” usage of downvotes becomes rampant on larger communities, rather than people expressing “this doesn’t contribute” with downvotes they end up using them to express “I don’t like you and/or your opinion” which results in high-quality posts and comments getting downvoted into oblivion because they do not conform to what the majority deems correct.

This also can be exasperated in communities that are more taste-based, e.g. a community discussing music rather than a community dealing with more objective knowledge.

I guess this is a really long way of saying that I agree with them disabling them but I do not think “mental health” is the concern, more so that they cannot fulfill their intended purpose in larger communities or taste-based communities.

It depends on what the community is about. If it’s a community/instance that features a lot of opinionated talk, downvotes should be off to avoid those with different opinions being downvoted and hidden. On a note advice based/general community I think they should be left on.

I think downvotes are ok as long as they show the real ammounts along the upvotes, besides there’s no karma here.
Also for those that say people could abuse downvotes to bury discussion, well guess what? People abuse upvotes too to increase their visibility, then we should disable upvotes so they can’t be abused either, right?

I think it’s ok if an instance decides to disable them (or both) if they don’t want or can’t deal with being downvoted, but trying to spread it to other instances is just trying to create a circlejerk.

No. Downvotes can help drive engagement as more people try to understand what was said.

People being downvoted doesnt necessarily mean it is hateful, it could just be incorrect or morally objectionable… it’s important that discourse is there, too.

I really love that each instance gets a choice in the matter, and that we as a result also have a choice. There’s definitely situations where downvotes are abused, and other situations where they are insightful - as discussed by the other commenters here already.

As a result, we can customize our Lemmy experience to fit both scenarios just by having two accounts. If you’re looking for advice on car modifications, use a Lemmy account with downvotes visible. If you’re looking for a safe space to express emotions without the risk of feeling invalidated, use your account where they’re disabled.

We don’t have to choose one and commit to it. Instead, we can use the right tool for the right job, and have a better experience overall.

One-size-fits-all is for centralized forums, not Lemmings. 😄

I think users should upgrade their ability to vote depending on how much reputation they have accumulated. But I don’t know how that could be implemented in fedeverse architecture.

Disabling downvotes in brigade-prone or support communities makes sense, but I wish more instances had downvotes enabled. Sometimes I see posts giving incorrect information or just incredibly bad takes that don’t necessarily reach the level where mod intervention is required.