Good question. I think it does if downvotes result in inability to express an opinion (as opposed to simply having downvotes shown).
If downvotes are used to suppress freedoms then downvoting is a means of censorship. In other words, there is no big difference between prohibiting something by one person (dictatorship) or by 10 persons (collective dictatorship) (if it is not prohibited by law of course).
Down-voting can be used as censorship, if not used properly. As in downvoting because you don't agree with the opinion, rather than because the post is irrelevant, ad-hominem, or content-free. If you don't agree, post a rebuttal.
This site has a downvote button and an upvote button. The fact that people use that feature of the site (downvote), means the site is working as intended. It is not censorship.
In and of themselves, no. However, I think an argument could be made for the visual suppression of posts, which occurs after too many downvotes have been given, being a form of soft censorship. The information is still broadcast but it's made impossible to read unless I copy/paste it or tilt my screen to an extreme angle.
Well, the article is linked a few threads below, you can be the judge yourself. The whole concept of up/downvoting is based on having some kind of an opinion on a topic, which doesn't necessarily equate to hard censorship.
Indeed. Downvoting simply shouldn't exist. It lets users feel like "mini-censors" and it turns out people really like censoring views they don't agree with or that make them uncomfortable.
It's not just downvoting, though. Reddit also lets the moderators act like real censors and they are completely unaccountable. There is no way to visit a subreddit and know whether the discussion there is censored or not. So you have to assume it is.
The downvotes on our site serve totally different purpose. They do not censor - they cluster. They let you find people that share your values. Same with upvotes, also there's no karma to gain or lose.
reply