I've long argued that the downvote is terrible for civil discourse, I've had to tread carefully and be warned many times when I comment on it - including writing in-depth constructive criticism and not simply whining.
It's strange to me that especially on a technology forum discussing the negatives or pitfalls of certain mechanisms is being suppressed, censored - just like with politics, as politics is inherently intertwined with everything including non-action.
So then you admit that downvoting comes from people, who use their personal feelings of resentment to stifle thought. Exactly my point. All I want to do is talk tech without having to tiptoe around invisible peoples feelings. This is a microcosm of why silicon valley sucks.
I don't find his comments out of line and deserving a downvote.
My question is what purpose do downvotes serve other than allowing frustrated readers to retaliate against a "bad" post?
> a lot of my comments get upvoted when they're out-of-line with the majority
Your arguments have to be better. Simply stating differing opinion and anecdotal evidence (not always invalid) will often result in a downvote. I would find it more useful if the topic were explored, rather than censored.
----
Bummer, this story got censored. I think this is a good discussion. Obviously there are some unhappy people.
I wonder if there are any sites that do not have downvotes. Honestly, the lack of a downvote button really attracted me to Hacker News. It's a shame it's being liberally used.
* Sorry about the double post. I was not able to create a new post.
Politically tinged comments seem to get downvoted quite a bit here, similarly to Slashdot and many other forums. I've experienced this myself. In my opinion, downvoting a comment for any reason other than flagrant trolling, personal attacks, or similar content that degrades the dialogue should be considered inappropriate use of the privilege, because it undermines the feature and renders it pointless. On a Slashdot political topic, I have to read at -1 to catch all the points of view.
Downvoting is often used to express extreme disagreement. Ideally it might not be, but there are no real guidelines on how to use downvoting, and no good mechanism to enforce them if they existed.
It seems to me like the problem isn't that there are certain things you aren't allowed to say, but that there certain things that a large group of people aren't going to even bother taking seriously. It could be because they've seen the argument before and consider it both obviously wrong and inflammatory, or it could be because they've been brainwashed / self-deluded. Regardless, that is a problem with humanity, not the hacker news community.
Perhaps you are right. I have experienced downvotes primarily in semi politicized discussions like automation, economics blockchain, diversity discussions. Most technical posts seems fairly balanced.
Perhaps yeah abolish downvote and only have flag for admins and people with high karma is a good idea.
You seem to have a very simplistic view of how voting works. Why would you assume downvoting is a feedback mechanism to signal negative posts only? People downvote for all sorts of reasons.
I for instance downvoted your comment, for supporting a blanket regulatory attitude across the IT spectrum. It's tantamount to proposing a single programming language across the whole stack. That portrays a very narrow view of the world. Not to mention it can lead to being counterproductive.
Do note, human communication is a complex endeavor. We employ all kinds signals and techniques for information exchange and a simple downvote in an online forum is a perfectly valid signal, albeit an ambiguous one.
Given the community works through a voting system, the downvoting of provocative and speculative opinions is the community's way of signaling that such opinions aren't welcome – or at least need to be better worded to encourage discussion.
Calling that a "cultural of suppression" instead of "the intended outcome of a feature" seems weird.
You can see it in action on Hacker News, or any sites with downvotes. Inevitably, the downvoting will destabilise any equilibrium - the views of even a slight majority will get reinforced in a positive feedback loop, and you end up with an echo chamber. There are several opinions that I know can't be voiced here.
Downvoting is simple disagreement (by policy) not some attempt to quash discussion. I know folks guard their karma jealously, which leads to resentment about downvoting. Add to that the 'greyed out' feature on downvoted comments which does look like censorship. But as an automatic mechanism for self-moderation it works ok, not perfect. Just look at the stuff at the bottom of a long discussion to see the quashed stuff, and tell me it doesn't belong there.
Most of the good discussion here happens without much mutual upvoting or downvoting. Frequent downvoters fit other users into political/technical/social narratives that wouldn’t make sense to anyone else, and the downvoted would reflect that.
I wasn't meaning to say that your efforts at freezing out conversation about the downvote are having that effect. I'm saying that's the effect of the (current) downvoting mechanic itself. What you're trying to freeze out is people expressing, however indirectly, a legitimate concern about the social environment being created by the current mechanics of the site.
In other words, I think you're being a bit too quick to the trigger to dismiss these sorts of comments as just being boring conversation. My impression is that they're actually a rather banal tip to a much more consequential iceberg. You can't see the rest of it because it concerns things that are mostly happening out of view, out in meatspace, and typically only manifest themselves indirectly in what's happening on Hacker News. Especially if you're trying to "freeze out" the more direct manifestations.
I don't feel picked on. However, I do think that the way that downvoting works in online communities deserves some examination. And, given the basic structure of how HN works, community members don't really have a clear way to discuss it except by complaining about it in comments like these. Which isn't the best way. But still.
"Freezing it out", as you say, has the effect of shutting that conversation down completely, which I think is potentially harmful to the long-term quality of the discourse, and in a way that is rather more insidious than the rather more banal quality problem that you're trying to guard against.
In particular, the ever-present threat of getting voted down to -5 for presenting an idea that goes against the popular opinion presents a strong disincentive to share opinions, particularly for less thick-skinned individuals. And it creates a constant low-grade anxiety for some contributors. Pre-emptively complaining about the downvote is one symptom of this effect, but it's not the only one. Others, less visible, symptoms are that people just don't share their opinions at all, or don't share them as thoroughly or eloquently, when they're worried that doing so might result in the electronic equivalent of a smackdown.
And the fact that this phenomenon affects certain people more than others does put a spin on the conversations that take place on Hacker News. Not necessarily one that has the effect of elevating the quality of discourse over the long run.
People have started using downvotes to indicate disagreement. Ironically, on this site at least, sufficient downvotes result in that post being hidden from view. Imagine that, censoring opinions with which you (in the proverbial sense) disagree.
I'm not actually silencing anyone by down voting, but if enough people down vote then it does make it slightly harder to see the post. Of course, if you don't have showdead enabled in your profile, you don't get to see those posts. I'm not opposed to collective actions in a venue designed for it, such as this one. When I make a comment I am aware that it might be down voted to oblivion, and that's something I accept. I'm free to disassociate myself with Hacker News if I don't like it.
This is my experience as well! I usually reflect on my unpopular comments and realize I could have been more considerate or worded things less rashly... Or my viewpoint is just unpopular.
I find it genuinely difficult to relate to the other comments on here equating downvotes to oppression or even violence.
If anything, my hope would be that Hacker News becomes MORE strictly moderated via downvotes, and maybe even starts banning some non-tech oriented politics. Now shower me with downvotes, 500+ karma daddies, to show the little ones it is okay.
It's strange to me that especially on a technology forum discussing the negatives or pitfalls of certain mechanisms is being suppressed, censored - just like with politics, as politics is inherently intertwined with everything including non-action.
reply