I wish I could wall myself off from

Well this is at least honest!

Perhaps it’s a personality thing. Perhaps generational. Technically I’m a member of a minority community but I’ve never defined myself by that, and “hate” in the contemporary sense (I think its meaning has drifted unhelpfully) is not something that especially bothers me. My experience is that most people are well-meaning, so I tend to be intrigued by the question of why they think the things they do.

Anyway, this is not a debate with a single correct answer. It is of course your right to shut out whoever you want, I won’t question that.

Intriguing, thanks.

Assuming that “bigots” is not a synonym for “anyone I disagree with”, then fair enough.

My underlying point is that technology is making it very easy to wall ourselves off into comfortable echo chambers. Some are even calling that “safety”. From my understanding of history, this looks like an obviously slippery and dangerous slope to be on.

But if are talking about what most of your fellow citizens would also identify as “bigots”, then fair enough.

Sort of. Essentially I am saying that in a democracy we need to talk to each other, and sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and chanting “lalalala I can’t hear you” seems like a poor way to go about that. These people can vote too. Like it or not, you have an interest in understanding what makes them tick and what might help them to see the world in a way more conducive to you.

Completely agree. I had no idea how bad this phenomenon was until very recently, when I fell foul of a virtual lynch mob and its political-commissar mod who behaved like a religious inquisitor even in private conversation. It’s real.

The problem with this approach is that your peeps won’t see any reason to go there if it’s the same as the R-site only exponentially less popular.

There needs to be an understandable USP.

Perhaps: “But without ads. Ever. Anywhere.” Works for me and I know what an ad-blocker is, unlike a ton of normies.

This reads like satire. These are people you’re talking about, probably your fellow citizens. Their wrong opinions are not going to pollute you from the other side of a wall. Seeing (apparently sincere) takes like this really makes me worried about the future of democracy.

You’re both right.

If there aren’t people building this alternative, in their free time, for free, then it won’t exist. Fair enough. Much credit to them.

But it looks like @[email protected] is just an ordinary user with a busy life who wants to consume content in a way that better respects their privacy and autonomy. That is also a fair demand. Not everyone needs to be a producer.

This was genuinely funny. Thanks.

but lemmy is quite diverse.

Apart from a bunch of thriving specialist techie communities, what I see there is mostly tiny spaces dominated by intolerant groupthink and tyrannical moderators.

Indeed I just had a very bad experience in one of those that left me (almost) regretting the R-site.

Yes, others have suggested that too. Thanks.

Unsure if you’re even being serious here. The relevancy of the subject matter is not in question. The issue at hand is that people are downvoting opinions. Forgive my directness but if an opinion does not hold value in the context of the community, that seems to me just a waffly way of saying that the opinion is not welcome in the community without actually saying it.

but nobody’s voice would get silenced unless more people turned the knob down on them than up?

So, a popularity contest of opinions where unpopular views do get silenced.

The signal can be inhibited in exactly the same way by just not upvoting what you don’t want to see. Yes, it’s not as powerful as downvoting but then at least you’re not telling someone to sit down and shut up.

For me, that is the real issue. Why are so many people so keen to hide opinions that they don’t like? Again: we are talking about viewpoints expressed in a thoughtful manner. Not irrelevancy, not insults, not incoherent rambling. They’re all fair game.

Personally I find it disturbing that so many people are happy to invalidate and silence others. I don’t agree with you but you made your point well and it would never cross my mind to downvote you for making it.

Factually incorrect, sure. But do you not see that your other criteria are very subjective? Rights, suffering, decency, these are all slippery non-binary concepts. Others may define them differently from you. Presumably you don’t think that others are not allowed to have their own opinions, yet in effect you’re telling them that. I think I already know which way you vote and, believe it or not, I vote that way too. But in my understanding of history, treating the views of others as invalid is generally a dangerous path to be on.

Personally, I use downvotes to say “I disagree with this and/or it is a stupid/bad/bigoted/etc take, but I do not wish to spend the time and effort to respond and get dragged into a text-based mudfight

So far, a great articulation of what (I guess) most downvoters are thinking.

with someone who is unlikely to speak to me politely, no matter how polite I try to be in my rebuttal.”

But I’m not sure you’re being honest with yourself here. Certainly not if you’re talking about my comments, which are always polite if sometimes a bit forthright because I’m a direct kind of person.

I like having a way to say “no, bad, stop that”

Nicely put, again. But then: why should your antagonist “stop that”? They should shut up just because you disagree with them?

We come back to the crucial element: civility. If one believes in free speech, and the right of others to have their own opinions and to have a voice, I still see absolutely justification for downvoting a thoughtfully expressed opinion.

I don’t agree with you here but I respect your right to have an opinion and I would never think of downvoting you for it. If that comes across as sanctimonious, so be it. I prefer to see it as just coherent with values. Which I’m sure you share, by the way.

Really helpful. Gonna act on this information.

Without downvoting that content will instead show as something with few upvotes and more or less be blended normally with the rest of the comments.

To confirm: an unpopular comment posted on downvoting-enabled Site A will show higher when viewed on downvoting-disabled Site B? Or only if it was actually posted on Site B?

This is an excellent point, very perceptive and well expressed, and the first time somebody has actually said it. I know it already and I do try to do as you suggest. The problem is that I have a bit of a combative personality so it’s a real struggle, especially when I feel I’m choosing my words very intentionally so that nothing is literally insulting or wrong or falsifiable. A combative lawyer basically, what could possibly go wrong? I often wish I could be more emollient and compromising in my attitude to others, I really do admire it when I see it in others. But alas personality is something very hard to change. So yeah, thanks for the insightful and constructive feedback. And take an upvote to add to your overflowing and deserved collection.

the option to join an instance with downvoting disabled

Having trouble wrapping my mind around this. The post is on Site A. My comment is on Site B. The evil downvoter sees it on Site C. Um - what happens next?

turn off the vote tallies yourself in your account settings

Already did that, the exact number is a waste of screen space.

I don’t deny that voting is helpful when it’s used to rate the quality of the contribution - i.e. whether or not it adds values, makes you think. But to vote based on how much you subjectively agree or disagree is completely useless, it’s all about the person voting and nothing about the comment. It adds literally nothing and when it’s a downvote it stifles and poisons the atmosphere too. Anyway, I’ve made my point.

Not bad advice, admittedly