Downvotes suck. I get it, they are made up internet points coming from strangers (or bots) that you know nothing about, and you shouldn’t let that get you down. Still, putting in a few minutes of effort to share your opinion and engage with the community just to see a downvote is disheartening.
Based on the patterns of downvotes I see on a post, it seems like there is usually one or two people downvoting everything they wouldn’t personally say themselves. Extrapolating from this, I presume there is a population of users that contribute more downvotes than anything.
Personally, I don’t think the platform should allow any user to spend more time tearing things down than building other things up. Only allowing downvotes after so many upvotes would help stop trolls and could help generate more engagement via upvotes.
Edit:
The upvote/downvote count would be a global count including posts and comments, not a post specific count. This solution does not prevent downvoting, it merely adds friction to those who predominantly leave negative feedback by ensuring their positive feedback elsewhere. Sure, some would go on to upvote unsavory things, but others would attempt to further engage with their interests, and some would simply lurk.
If any good faith user approached the limitation, they would likely be better served by curating their feed.
I was referring to the goals that you listed in the previous comment. It seems like you entire argument is that I do not have any objective data on subjective goals. And yes, the presence of moderators and community/platform rules also reveals a desire to control the way people express themselves.
This post isn’t a submission for a code change, its to get the conversation started on the problem (that you refuse to acknowledge) of users who predominantly leave downvotes. Your persistence about my lack of data is goofy, just nip it in the bud and say you will only consider policy changes proposed by moderators with stats to back their proposal. This is post is supposed to be the thing that might spur someone with the data to then look into it.
Actually, my argument is that the motivation to control user interaction in a broad way like you propose is inherently flawed because it comes from a desire to control people.
The difference, again, is that moderator actions are individual, specific, contextual, and limited to a specific point in time, and also logged. Removing a particular comment or banning a particular user is very different from adjusting the balance of voting wholesale. Moderation is better because it is limited and flexible to each individual situation.
No, I am not refusing to acknowledge the problem, I am saying that your proposed solution (1) won’t address that problem effectively and (2) will create additional problems that (long-term) will be worse for the community. The cost/benefit doesn’t work out.
I comment on your lack of data because I think your conclusions about what will or won’t improve community interaction are emotional and anecdotal. And frankly, I think the track record of social media demonstrates the opposite - people engage with controversy. Enforced positivity turns people off, it kills meaningful conversation. It’s like Disneyland - nice for a visit, but you wouldn’t want to live there.