There are a lot of downvoted posts in this thread that make reasonable arguments and that are promoting discussion. I disagree with a lot of them, but it’s awkward for this to be a story where people are heavily downvoting people they disagree with
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend your right to say itHowever, in opposition to my own idea, I consider that simply requiring a more effort wouldn't necessarily change the groupthink problem, but would just stifle low effort downvotes.
Let's consider then the whole idea of votes in the first place. Are downvotes considered "speech" in an abstract sense? Should they be protected in the same way disagreeable opinions are? Is the level of effort necessary to express the speech relevant to the level of protection it deserves? Would restricting downvotes in any way be considered a speech restriction?
So these are all interesting aspects to the problem that cause me a lot of internal debate.
In that sense HN really made me a more civil person to discuss with, while I am still able to write controversial opinions when I happen to have them.
So on balance, in my experience, the downvoting has been a good development for me.
[1] There was a year where I was arguably mildly depressed about my job situation. I graduated had all the bells and whistles, and worked amazingly hard for it (I almost burned out twice). Yet, I couldn't get a prestigious job. And for me, that was the whole point. Why work hard if it doesn't get you anywhere? I gave up on a lot of things.
The tone in my comments during that year was more negative than usual despite my opinions being similar. I experimented with being more positive than I actually felt, while still expressing the same opinions, and noticed I'd be downvoted less and upvoted more.
I agree
I disagree
Thoughtful
Contentless
I learned something
I changed my mind
This way we could eg. express that we disagree with the post, which was thoughtful and a good effort, and didn't change our minds but still learned something.
One huge poison in a lot of modern discourse is that accepting your interlocutor has a point should mean you start to agree with them. Why? Some of the best things I've ever read in my life didn't change my overall stance on a subject, but gave it a lot of new nuance and depth, and appreciation for the person talking.
An overhaul of these networks to adapt more to human-like discourse is much-needed and welcome imo.
Kialo for example has a more complex voting system that works better.
1) Crowdsourced moderation. Well, everyone is using manual moderation anyway.
2) Silencing others. This is a misfeature.
3) Finding the best content. Upvotes are enough for that.
That said, I'm not sure this will reduce groupthink. Twitter has no downvotes and plenty of groupthink.
First downvote can be used for arguments like "let's increase taxes to the rich because, this way we can build more fair society, European countries have shown that high taxes..."
Second downvote can be used for comments like "Let's tax these rich bastards".
I want to also mention reddit voting system which I kinda like: they have downvoting, but they also have a sorting by "controvervial": top comments are the comments with high number of both upvotes and downvotes, such comments really help to see the full spectre of opinions in discussions, while the universally true and not interesting comments everyone agrees with like "we should not kill people", are below controversial comments.
Having it work that way would significantly discourage using upvotes and downvotes as agree/disagree buttons, and make it much clearer what the community thinks of any particular post or piece of content.
The problem is in my opinion that once people begin to act like this, their victims behave like this also. If you get punished for arguing against somebody, you learn to stop arguing and just downvote that person instead. It's a chain reaction.
I believe this is also true for Hacker News.
I think old school sequential forums were actually much better, outside specific niches they're harder to find these days though. Having the things everyone strongly agrees with at the top where they're the first to be read just encourages flamewars straight out of the gate and a lot of stuff just got lost in the middle to never be looked at again. But when casually reading you see replies from everyone, there's no distinction between controversial opinions and group think approved ones. One of the few I frequent regularly is actually a political and has posters with the full spectrum of beliefs, but the lack voting makes things much more pleasant than a similar topic on here or reddit would be.
There were a couple of other advantages too, bumping threads meant the conversation was over when it stopped being discussed, not when an algorithm decided it was no longer interesting.
I like ranked forums for Q and A content though, Eg, like stack overflow or even reddit when I’m trying to answer a technical question.
Mostly though, nothing can replace a good forum culture. I just meant to encourage that with my remark, the downvote button itself is only bad if people use it recklessly
With the exception of spam, that's a feature. If something offends you, you should consider why.
Upvotes are useful in reducing spam, as without them, I'd have to repeat a sentiment to show agreement. In my experience (anecdata warning!) that nicely leads to both the best post for an argument, and the best rebuttal, sharing visibility.
Neither combat the problem of "fake news", because frauds don't have to be well done if the local community agrees with the sentiment.
What I would be interested in is a more sophisticated ordering than by net number of votes. For example, I'm sure some people's upvotes correlate well with my own (and probably some people's downvotes correlate with my upvotes!) If comments could somehow be ordered by how likely I am to upvote them, based on historical correlations between my and others' votes, that seems like an interesting approach.
Slashdot used to have that, it didn’t save it.
Some of the best stuff I've ever read didn't change my overall stance on the issue, but gave it nuance and depth it didn't have before, and more respect for the person on the other side.
I actually don't see any value in downvotes. It's usually used when people disagree, which obviously leads to silos of thought and suppressing ideas. If somebody is being particularly disruptive and unproductive, then they should be flagged, but otherwise I wish downvotes would be removed from HN. It has no place here.
Especially on HN, where I thought the idea was for people to have reasonable discussions about things, downvotes are frustratingly counter to that. If you disagree with something, it's too easy to just downvote and move on. And people pile on without saying anything. And in the end, nobody learns anything because nobody's actually talking about what's wrong with the comment.
Then again, I get the feeling nobody here actually wants to learn anything from fellow users if they happen to represent different ideas. I guess that's by design?
Since I only downvote in the rare cases where I believe a person is being dangerously disingenuous or unreasonable, I often don't feel there would be any value in replying. If they are misrepresenting facts or I believe they are not reasonable, why would I attempt to reason with them?
Instead if I think the person is just confused or hasn't considered a different perspective, I won't downvote and might reply. Often I will just ignore it anyways, since I am ambivalent about the possibility of reasoning with people over the internet.