By default, Lemmy allows downvotes globally. However, when a server disables downvoting, it is similar to using a feature that is usually reserved for enterprises and very small, non-federated communities.

If a user prefer to not see downvotes, they can disable it by his favourite client settings, but the rest of the community should not miss this functionality for the pleasure of few users.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 months ago

    Supply demand is king either ignore the downvotes or find a new target market. I dont recon its worked at all its just means people will block the accounts meaning they are memory holed perminantly.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Supply demand is king

      No, it is not. Smithsonian economics don’t even work here, due to the network effect causing a vicious cycle: less visibility due to downvotes → lower perceived supply → users look for that content outside Lemmy → less demand for that content → lower actual supply.

      And in this case it’s really bad, because Lemmy is supposed to be welcoming to gay people too, not just heterosexual men like me.

      I dont recon its worked at all its just means people will block the accounts meaning they are memory holed perminantly.

      They block the communities instead, as it’s easier than blocking individual posters. And, frankly, it’s a better approach than downvoting the content as it discourages it from being shared.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 months ago

        Lemmy is the ultimate embodiment of a free market. U dont think thats even a valid argument if that content is downvoted communities dedicated to it will be equally downvoted. Welcoming should not mean making the experience for the majority significantly worse simply to avoid a minority having to search a little harder.

        Blocking communities doesnt work entirely since u end up with fat chicks and dicks in communities that arent specificly dedicated to either.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          Lemmy is the ultimate embodiment of a free market.

          Certain tools inspire certain behaviors. In other words, all you have is a hammer… Ironically, that’s also a reason commercial platforms resist implementing negative votes.

          Changing the tool to better suite it’s purpose is an option, but decentralized networks are inherently resistant to such changes. With the backlog of bugs and missing features this ecosystem has, the developers would not be amused if somebody came up with a new tagging or filtering system.

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          Lemmy is the ultimate embodiment of a free market. […]

          Yet another dumb claim piled up over another. At this point I’m not wasting my time with this, I’ll facepalm at this crap and move on to the main point.

          Blocking communities doesnt work entirely since u end up with fat chicks and dicks in communities that arent specificly dedicated to either.

          Nirvana fallacy. People who expect perfect and all-encompassing solutions for problems should take a reality check.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 months ago

            The fediverse is a perfect metaphor for a free market please explain how it isnt.

            I dont expect perfect solutions thats why downvotes to solve the problems that blocking cant exists. Thx for proving my point

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 months ago

              Easy: Votes are an unlimited resource because a user can vote on as many posts as they want and a person can create basically unlimited user accounts, thus the fediverse would be like a market where everyone can create money out of thin air, defeating the purpose of having a market at all.

              The fediverse would be more like a market if users had to “earn” votes by posting stuff other people vote on then “spend” those votes on other people’s posts. Then votes would be a limited resource that would make sense to apply market principles to.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 months ago

                Bitcoins are an unlimited resource you can mine infinitely many of them. Both votes and bitcoins are raw resources that can be “mined” (earned) infinitely at a given rate by utilising the base resources time, compute, and internet.

                U spend ur time compute internet and attention to earn votes that u spend on posts to affect the marketplace of ideas.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Yes, most people here probably know that. But it’s really got nothing to do with the actual point being made. You’re just declining to engage. Of course, the idea you’re declining to engage with is kind of dumb, so one wonders why you didn’t just walk away.