by markozivanovic on 12/15/21, 12:22 PM with 93 comments
For example, I'll sometimes see a massively downvoted comment that's constructive and beautifully written, but it carries an opinion that is not currently popular for whatever reason.
I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network like HN. Moreover, I would say that I learned the most from the comments that I disagreed with - on all levels, politically, technologically, personally.
I will downvote a comment if it's not constructive, only written to be provocative, etc. It doesn't matter if I agree with the author's opinion or not. If someone puts in the effort to explain their opinion politely and constructively, my thinking is that it's positive for all the people in the community.
So, what kind of a downvoter are you? What are some of your reasons for downvoting a comment?
by dusted on 12/15/21, 2:11 PM
More seriously, I almost never downvote, when I do, it's mostly if it's outright offensive, either literally or intellectually, that is, not an argument that I disagree with as such, but one that I find offensively uninformed, self-deceptive or is nothing but value-signalling. That can include arguments that align with my own opinion [1].
1. Contrived example: I may find a proposed law a bad idea because it limits freedom in socity. If someone else agreed that it was a bad idea, but argued it was because the law would be friendly to "some ethnic minority they dislike". I'd still downvote them for being idiots, (to be fair, it'd probably also make me reconsider my own position).
by MerelyMortal on 12/15/21, 2:15 PM
- the comment contains information that I know is either factually incorrect, or
- is making bad assumptions.
I have upvoted comments I disagree with in the past because they were well-reasoned, good, thought-provoking comments.
by dkdbejwi383 on 12/15/21, 2:33 PM
- misleading or in bad-faith (straw man arguments, cherry-picking to the point of absurdity)
- obviously designed to cause offence or provocation
- which don't add to conversation ("this", "yeah", "same", etc)
- unconstructively dismissive
If it's something I disagree with but it's a good-faith argument and well written, I just move on.
I know some downvote jokes/puns, but I don't mind them in moderation. I think one needs to read the room before making joke comments though.
by edmcnulty101 on 12/15/21, 2:08 PM
I have dead comments turned on and see a lot of well-made thought provoking comments that that are flagged because they are contrary to the popular narrative.
On the other hand there are a lot of bad comments that deserve to be flagged so it's a double-edged sword.
by zaphar on 12/15/21, 1:14 PM
* It has little to no content relating to the conversation.
* It is also unnecessarily provocative.
Basically if it looks like a troll, walks like a troll, and acts like a troll it get's the downvote.
by hn_throwaway_99 on 12/15/21, 2:22 PM
At the end of the day I think everyone just upvotes comments they like, and downvotes comments they dislike, people just have different reactions to things that impact what "dislike" means to them.
by guerrilla on 12/15/21, 2:38 PM
- just expresses personal preference
- bad assumptions
- bad argument
- factually incorrect
- too unclear
- inflammatory or dismissive
- probably other stuff
> I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network
Sure but I think it is a bit naive and futile to expect otherwise. People are going to try to hide and punish the spreading of opinions that they don't want people to have. Consider especially that there are opinions that people consider against their interests for people to hold, thus there is an even stronger incentive for them to suppress them and doing so would be entirely rational.
by wut42 on 12/15/21, 1:54 PM
But on Reddit, I now tend to downvote things I dislike. I originally acted like on HN, but I noticed that _everyone_ else is downvoting because 'they don't like it', so I got on it too.
by MrMan on 12/15/21, 2:14 PM
by SilasX on 12/15/21, 2:36 PM
- Summaries of key dynamics/context for the discussion.
- Substantively criticizing other's points.
- References to related materials about the topic in different context and how they're relevant.
How do you worsen the discussion? The opposite of that, plus:
- Misrepresenting arguments or misapplying a citation.
- Replying only to the weakest, easiest version of a point. [1]
- Low-effort in-jokes. ("Hey, maybe they could use a Beowulf cluster for this!" "The mitochondria? Like, the powerhouse of the cell?" Any reference to the IT crowd emergency number.)
Generally speaking, my voting will correlate with whether I agree with a comment. But, two big exceptions:
- If I disagree with the conclusion, but it makes a good case for it that I think merits a response, I'll upvote.
- If I agree with the points, it's done in a trollish way that hinders substantive discussion of the key argument, I downvote. There was one interesting case (I'll try to find it) where the commenter made a great point, and even made a great analogy to one kind of taxation ... but the point didn't need the analogy, and said analogy (predictably) triggered a bunch of commenters to defend their sacred taxation cow at all costs even if they would have otherwise agreed with the main point.
[1] including nitpicking, unless the comment indicates it's doing so, i.e. just fixing a technical inaccuracy unrelated to the core point
by 1ibsq on 12/15/21, 2:04 PM
Long story short: I try to focus on what has value and encourage that behavior with upvotes and further comments.
PS: What's the required karma to downvote? I'm currently not in the position to be able to downvote anyway ^^
Edit: (1) "I'm not cynical, but ..." Well, not a good start... I try not to be, maybe I am. But I don't want to be. (2) Karma required to downvote is 500 according to another commenter
by bradlys on 12/15/21, 6:38 PM
I flag stories when the headline doesn’t match the content or the content piece itself is garbage.
I’m liberal with downvotes. I’ll go through some threads and only downvote - nothing being worthy of an upvote.
I get I’m different than some here who think the downvote is holy and should only be used on the most sinful but I prefer a liberal amount of course correction over even slight sins. No sense in trying to turn a boat that is already flipped.
I also use it to manipulate threads where I want a certain comment to be at the top. I’ll downvote one that I’m not particularly fond of and then upvote those I find more relevant - purely with the goal to get a certain narrative going.
I think many people here do the same, tbh. This might make me sound like a prolific downvoter but I don’t feel like I am. Many threads get no votes at all from me and I read quite a few…
by MerelyMortal on 12/15/21, 2:21 PM
by AnimalMuppet on 12/16/21, 12:53 AM
I'd even go so far as to say, if you're not going to listen, don't try to talk (here). HN isn't for you to prove that you're right against all comers. That's a really low-quality conversation.
Now, you can have someone who is in fact completely in the right, and it can take quite a few posts to demonstrate why. (Been on the receiving end, most recently in nuclear physics.) But you can kind of tell the difference between "listening to understand" and "listening only to argue back".
by mdp2021 on 12/15/21, 2:40 PM
> I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network like HN
Yes: that would be unintellectual. If this is for debate, debate it should be. (Otherwise it would be "polling", not debating.)
Some noted that "If one can upvote to express agreement, then one could downvote to express disagreement". This position fails to see the asymmetry in rational discourse: you may not need further arguments to support the weight of an expressed position, but you do, in general, need arguments to instead oppose it.
(Otherwise, it's Monty Python's Argument Sketch - "Yes it is", "No it isn't"...)
by formerly_proven on 12/15/21, 2:23 PM
I try (but probably fail often) to downvote only on fact or form, not opinion.
by PaulHoule on 12/15/21, 12:40 PM
by tokai on 12/15/21, 2:32 PM
by wruza on 12/15/21, 1:55 PM
Edit: I think that the common idea of downvoting on HN is that it’s not your own opinion on a post content, but actually a public moderation mechanism allowing you to decide if that comment fits HN, not you, without flagging it to a moderator.
by Mezzie on 12/15/21, 3:26 PM
I don't downvote on Reddit. The way the voting system is implemented makes it functionally worthless and I don't see the point. I also barely upvote; I upvote comments that I really like/agree with/want to encourage if they're low scoring. Like comments sharing on a PTSD subreddit; I'll upvote if those are low to encourage people to speak/let them know the lurkers support them in email.
Can't DV on HN with this account, but back in the Dark Ages, I only downvoted here if the comment was either a.) assuming bad faith/attacking a strawman or b.) pulling in what I recognize as a narrative and not leaving space for it to be questioned. (So Twitter level content).
For FB I guess the 'downvote' would be the angry button, but I don't think that's a good comparison, given it is also used for being infuriated on behalf of the comment maker instead of AT them.
Though that comparison now makes me want to compare downvoting behavior to car horns: Both are limited communication devices meant to display displeasure with the actions of a random stranger you might never encounter again...
by anyfactor on 12/15/21, 2:20 PM
I am pretty good at rants so I will go on a rant on the comment section instead. I like to vent to strangers and I think some people love a good rant to read.
by CaptainZapp on 12/15/21, 2:17 PM
I virtually always upvote comments, which I see downvoted for expressing an opinion, which is obviously presented in good faith. That's even then the case when I violently disagree with the opinion in question.
What's even worse than people downvoting a well reasoned opinion are downvotes for factual statements.
by sideway on 12/15/21, 2:27 PM
if only those comments could just disappear from HN.
by lbriner on 12/15/21, 2:18 PM
I wouldn't downvote someone who said something like "Shouldn't we all make time to ensure our code is always secure" (even though this might not be realistic/true) whereas someone who said something like, "Anyone who doesn't make time to ensure their code is always secure deserves to go out of business" implies that it is always possible to secure all code; that people choose to not secure certain parts; and therefore they deserve to fail. I am more likely to downvote this.
I don't mind opinions though so if someone said "I always use PHP and it has always been fine", is no problem even though that's not my experience.
by nzmsv on 12/15/21, 2:21 PM
I've had well-written comments downvoted into oblivion in threads that also included another comment stating the exact same opinion slightly differently. I've had zingy one-liners upvoted to 100 or so. I've had discussions where the back and forth statements alternated between negative and positive karma.
I'm treating it as a study in human behavior around communications. So far my takeaways are:
- a zingy one-liner that agrees with the zeitgeist will be upvoted to the sky
- the same type of comment expressing a contrarian view will be buried
- timing matters: if you get a few downvotes early on, the downvote brigade will help ensure a continued slide
- downvoting to disagree is natural (meme theory and all that). What's interesting to me is how can one overcome the impulse to downvote and potentially seed a new idea in someone's brain.
by injb on 12/15/21, 1:41 PM
I sometimes reflexively downvote but when I see the comment collapse, it gives me pause and makes me think about my own motivations - do I really think that comment simply shouldn't appear for me, or do I just disagree with it? Even if I think it's ignorant or badly written, I still have to think twice.
In contrast, other platforms let you downvote and reply, which I think lets you try to have it both ways: I want to tell you what I think of your stupid comment, but I also don't want you to be part of the conversation. Maybe that's fundamentally wrong.
I agree with the other person who said people can be too think skinned about the whole business though.
by vanilla-almond on 12/15/21, 2:27 PM
I think the downvote option is probably needed but it can be problematic - it carries different meanings with subtle differences:
- A way to signal disagreement with a comment.
- A means to flag a comment as clearly misleading or incorrect.
- A way of signalling a 'low value' comment (obviously subjective).
- A way for the downvoter to simply express his or her displeasure at what has been posted regardless how reasonable the comment is. (This probably happens more often than people care to admit it. It's subtly different than just disagreement.)
One might argue all the above examples are types of 'disagreement'.
An idea:
Clicking downvote adds the following line to the end of a comment: 3 readers disagree or 3 readers downvoted. Would this make readers pause before they hit the downvote button? (And is that a good or bad thing?)
by gorgoiler on 12/15/21, 2:17 PM
I do this rarely when someone is commenting in a way that’s going to drag a thread into a muddy, already-well-trodden non-sequitur.
New and more interesting ideas deserve as much of a chance as they can get.
by rhn_mk1 on 12/15/21, 2:14 PM
I try not to downvote opinions, even if they are blatantly stupid. On the other hand, disagreeing in a clever way will earn an upvote from me.
by pawelwentpawel on 12/15/21, 2:41 PM
I might downvote on HN or Reddit if something is spammy or blatantly doesn't bring any value to the conversation. I do that very rarely though.
Frequency wise I much more often go straight to reporting content for removal without getting into discussion with people that have more free time than me. While it still unfortunately takes time, I believe that if damaging (racist, abusive, calling for violence) content is left unattended the general amount of it will only multiply with time.
by dfxm12 on 12/15/21, 2:44 PM
I'll also downvote stuff that is off topic. I'm sure I downvote other things, but I'd say those two are the lion's share.
by 300bps on 12/15/21, 2:25 PM
by nurettin on 12/16/21, 4:42 AM
by AdrianB1 on 12/15/21, 2:40 PM
This is only for HN, I am not active on social networks, I had enough.
by Overtonwindow on 12/15/21, 2:14 PM
by xboxnolifes on 12/15/21, 5:51 PM
- Comments that seem to be trolls or low effort jokes.
- Such outlandish comments that I can't even bring myself to reply to, as I can see no timeline where value can be added in the conversation chain.
Otherwise, I make an effort to reply if I disagree.
by itsdrewmiller on 12/15/21, 5:28 PM
by emehex on 12/15/21, 2:15 PM
by davidivadavid on 12/15/21, 2:55 PM
by alyandon on 12/15/21, 2:22 PM
by bjourne on 12/15/21, 4:52 PM
by lgrialn on 12/15/21, 3:41 PM
by sleepysysadmin on 12/15/21, 3:11 PM
>For example, I'll sometimes see a massively downvoted comment that's constructive and beautifully written, but it carries an opinion that is not currently popular for whatever reason.
Agreed. This is toxic to community and shuts down discussion. In fact I might even suggest that this happening essentially breaks the community. Not sure what to call it, but its not a community anymore.
>I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network like HN. Moreover, I would say that I learned the most from the comments that I disagreed with - on all levels, politically, technologically, personally.
This is really bad on HN. Not as bad as Reddit obviously. This has been more recently bad because we are a society inflection point. Reddit/HN are just the battlegrounds. Hell even the universities are battegrounds. Back in the day the universities were all about free speech and having diverse discussions about everything. Today? That sure isnt happening anymore.
The exercise here isn't about how to get better discussions. It's about identifying the discussions you're not allowed to have. Climate change for example is completely off limits. Why is it off limits? There's a significant number of people who believe we are on the verge of human extinction. To argue against climate change in any degree is tantamount to encouraging or contributing to our extinction. That's literally terms of war.
It's interesting to try to find all the issues you aren't allowed to discuss on HN. You can then also see who is doing it and why. The curious thing is why they are so secretive.
When you understand, how does it work out? What's going to be the event that fixes this? It's going to take a major event. World war against china? A greater depression? They are right and we will be extinct in about 10 years? It's unclear what it will be, but there's something bad coming.
by p2t2p on 12/16/21, 7:43 AM
by TigeriusKirk on 12/15/21, 8:11 PM
by jpgvm on 12/15/21, 2:21 PM
by matheusmoreira on 12/15/21, 8:09 PM
by furgooswft13 on 12/15/21, 2:45 PM
by cainxinth on 12/15/21, 2:34 PM
I downvote trolls and outlandish and objectively false lies (e.g. Bill Gates put microchips in the vaccines). That’s about it. I’m extremely liberal but I don’t downvote conservatives. They are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine.
by disadvantage on 12/15/21, 2:30 PM