Are the "Upvote" and "Downvote" buttons "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons?

That's how I treat them. Maybe with a bit more nuance: I'll upvote for something funny, informative things, or general good takes. I'll downvote if someone has a bad take, is unnecessarily mean, or is generally incoherent.

If the comment doesn't spark a reaction I just keep scrolling.

"Agree and “Disagree” will just leave us in a Lemmy bubble.

They should be more about "good post or bad post", so something that may be disagreeable gets upvotes if it is well stated.

Reward thought, creativity, etc, and let us all learn.

I thought so too, but about a year ago or so this same question popped up, and some of the comments were really eye opening.

The essence of it was something like this: if you use the upvote/downvote buttons as agree/disagree, then you're contributing to turning this platform into an echo chamber, which is the particular thing that makes social media such a shitty place.

You should use this feature on posts to indicate if it's relevant to the community's rules or not, meets the community's guidelines or not, contains factual, useful information or not.

On comments, you should use it to indicate if it's relevant to the topic or not, valid argument to what they're replying to or not, regardless of your own opinion.

A great example someone commented was, when he explained they were browsing lemmy together with his girlfriend, they had a great laugh at a comment, and then he promptly downvoted it, to her surprise. And it's because, even though the comment was fantastic, it was off topic, it wasn't useful for the actual conversation.

Oh, and actually, there was a thing, even on Reddit - believe it or not - which acted as upvote/downvote guidelines, describing how you should use those buttons.

I'll try to link the original post here if I find it.

Edit: Here's the comment I was referring to on the original post: https://lemmy.world/comment/5219066

I upvote content that may be useful or interesting to others, content I agree with and good jokes.

I try to only downvote spam, misinformation and any troll content.

They should be "this is worthy to be seen by many" and "this is not". Sometimes that also overlaps with my agreement with the post.

There are many ways people use them.

The way I use them and I wish everyone did is:

Upvote = I agree with this, this is what I would have posted too if I had seen the comment earlier, this is extraordinarily funny or insightful and I want more people to see it

Downvote = I think this doesn't meaningfully contribute to the discussion at all, it would have been better if it hadn't been posted, others shouldn't have to read it

The vast majority of things doesn't fall into either of these categories, so I neither upvote nor downvote them; if I merely disagree with something, I write a counterargument but do not downvote.

They’re “I want to see more like this” and “I want to see less like this” buttons.

For posts, upvote means I want more of this, that's some good content. Downvote means I want less of this, that's some bad content.

For comments, upvote means good point, good joke, excellent addition to the conversation. Downvote means bad point, bad joke, poor addition to the conversation.

Now I admit I have a hard time upvoting a comment that adds a good point to the discussion, but I personally disagree with.

I do wish we had a way to separate good/bad content from agree/disagree. I know Reddit defaulted to hiding downvoted content, a default that I found reasonable. However using Lemmy, that wasn't the default, and I've grown to prefer seeing all content. Don't get me wrong, I see some garbage, and I see stuff I disagree with, but I think it's useful.

Sometimes. I think the meaning of the arrows are somewhat contextual.

Downvoting spam for example isn't "disagreement", but it is a kind of disapproval.

Upvoting your post isn't "agreement", but I do it because I think it's an interesting question (maybe a kind of approval)?

If we generalized I guess we could ask whether upvotes are always relating positive emotion (approval, agreement, joy, etc.) and downvotes always relating negative emotion (disagreement, disapproval, anger, etc.)?

That is, are upvotes "yays" and downvotes "boos"?

Upvote: I agree at least for the most part.

Downvote: I have problems with the general content, or the source of the content.

No vote: I'm not going to downvote you, but I don't have to upvote you either.

Shouldn't be but they tend to be.

Sometimes people just straight up use them as agree/disagree buta lot of folks struggle to admit that an argument in favour of something with which they disagree can still be a worthwhile argument.

Yes. That's how people use it, so that's what it is. The original intention doesn't matter.

An upvote should be for quality content/discussion. This might be a well researched comment, a good joke, or just something that leads the discussion in a meaningful or interesting way. Generally, things I think should be valued or shared. There will obviously be bias, but my opinion isn't the basis of my decision. I try to upvote good-faith or thorough arguments I disagree with.

Downvotes are for low-quality and unhelpful content that I think shouldn't be spread. This doesn't have to be irrelevant or against the community rules, but often is. Things I might downvote include overused reposts, unnecessarily rude or insulting comments, low quality comments (IE someone trying to argue a well cited comment with an anecdote and nothing else), or spam.

Do you mean by seem that people here seem to use them like that, or that they just seem like that to you?

I try to reserve downvotes for people who are actively harming the discussion. Downvoting good comments just because you disagree is pretty shit behaviour, and I guess the same could be said about upvoting bad comments because you agree with the opinion.

They do sometimes end up used as agree/disagree buttons, but they're intended to be more about whether it's good content that provides some value, and downvotes are when you don't provide any value. This leave room for disagreement without downvoting a well written post that does add to the discussion.

I use downvotes for spam, and posts/comments what are just plainly wrong, incorrect, misleading or dangerous. Stuff I think is good gets upvoted, and stuff I disagree with but there's otherwise nothing wrong with it, I don't vote.

If a story about someone getting hurt because X is posted, you don’t downvote it because you dislike what happened, you upvote it because it’s important information that should be shared.

If someone makes a civilized and measured argument that you don’t agree with, you don’t downvote it because you disagree with their stance, you upvote it because it’s worthwhile discussion and all viewpoints deserve to be heard.

If you’re unsure how to feel about something, you can just not vote on it and scroll on. Unfortunately, there are apps that hide things when you vote. Some people are trained to always vote as a way of clearing their feed.

And other social media has spent decades training people that up means like and down means dislike. So the distinction that places like Lemmy or Reddit have from places like YouTube or Facebook is always going to be hard to convey to the many, many people who have been taught to think otherwise.

They shouldn't be used as such, but frequently are. It is even more difficult to distinguish between disagreement and insufficient argumentation.

My upvotes are for posts I like, downvotes I don't really use except when the content is factually wrong or misleading

There are no up or down vote police. You use them as you like.

The buttons control post visibility, so the question to ask is: do I want to boost this posts visibility? And then the crowd vote decides if the post is controversial which also boosts visibility.

I generally upvote when I see a comment that makes a good point I think is underrated. You could argue that this is a kind of agreement. But, in my view, agreement alone is not the only criteria. Stating obvious truths isn't really worth anyone's time, even if they are agreeable. I will also upvote posts that changed my mind or are close to doing so, or impress me (insightful, or funny).

I down vote spam and posts that misrepresent a position or argument (straw man).

I will not vote at all for most posts.

Not quite. Upvote means “I agree I like butt licking” and downvote means “I agree I like butt sex.” Easy to confuse the two.

Practically yes, despite the way that they ought to be used.

It's such a shame. Lemmy should be a place where we can collectively share ideas and debate openly. Comments and posts should only ever be downvoted if they're off topic, hateful or misleading. However, in reality people get downvoted mostly because someone simply doesn't like or wholly agree with them.

It's still better here than reddits awful circlejerks and echo chambers, but not by much and we should be wary of devolving to a state where people are disincentivized to post because they have an idea or opinion that may only be slightly off kilter to the hive mind.

No, that's the [other place] mentality. Upvote if you want to increase visibility to the post. For example, there may be a post with a link to an article about some politician doing something I disagree with. I would still upvote it if the post allows me to discuss why I disagree with said action.

Downvote if the content is harmful to the community (for example spam, overt racism, etc).

This is a question of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. People might say they shouldn't be used as such, but I'll bet a lot of people who say that are guilty of doing it anyway.

It really depends on where you use them.

In some communities I'll use upvotes as a way to track which posts I've seen.

In news communties I always downvote tabloid sources and clickbait headlines, regardless of content.

But when it comes to the comments, it's mostly an agree/disagree button.

dopamine button

They are just buttons, and you have volition. If you use the down arrow as “agree” and up arrow as “I hate your family” it still works. The aggregate of community usage of buttons give them meaning.

They are "hell yeah" and "fuck no" buttons.

I honestly wish there was a moderation system like Slashdot. You got a limited number of points each week, and you could vote comments "Insightful, Informative, Funny, Overrated, Spam" etc. Comments, etc could go up to +5 or down to -1; and you get a slider to determine at what point value comments are hidden at (+4, +2, etc)

It makes it so people can't be buried into the ether by brigading (they'd have to keep up a sustained downvote campaign to continually knock it down to -1), and can 'come back from the dead' so-to-speak, and also allows categorization of comments and may even allow the filtering of joke-comments so that conversations stay on topic or just so that you engage with the serious content instead of low-quality stuff. This encourages people to comment more genuinely and productively.

No. Good content: up. Bad content: down.

It's the "I like/don't like the sound of that button"

fake activism button

Nobody's going to upvote shit takes, obviously.

If someone's being an asshole or an idiot, I'm going to downvote them.

If someone says something that needs saying, or that's interesting or funny, I'm going to upvote it.

I see the upvote and downvote count as an overall room temperature/vibe check.

Whenever votes are good everything's chill, otherwise if approaching <50% happiness then I recheck/reflect and look for where I could've done better.

You can't please everyone however most can still avoid making fools out of themselves by trying to learn and improve from past mistakes.

Using the upvote button to agree isn't a problem, but it's more of a problem to use the downvote as a disagree if you're actually engaging with the person to debate the topic since it in theory lowers the visibility of the original post and your own commentary.

I always liked the idea of having a "recommend post" button, and let the better stuff with more recommendations and replies rise to the top naturally. It also avoids the weird feeling in clicking an upvote/agree/like to a topic that you want to discuss but is negative.

It's supposed to be about relevance and moderation of abusive content, not agreement, but that's not usually the case.

If they were, they'd be called Agree and Disagree buttons.

Interesting to read the comments, I was unaware anyone gave mich if a shit about posts, let alone how others might vote on them. I mean I don't actually know anyone here.

I do hit the upvote occasioanly if a post was helpfu/usefull... to me. Conditioning is the only real explanation I have for that behaviour though.

Practically yes, despite the way that they ought to be used.

It's such a shame. Lemmy should be a place where we can collectively share ideas and debate openly. Comments and posts should only ever be downvoted if they're off topic, hateful or misleading. However, in reality people get downvoted mostly because someone simply doesn't like or wholly agree with the comment.

It's still better here than reddits awful circlejerks and echo chambers, but not by much and we should be weary of devolving to a state where people are disincentivized to post because they have an idea or opinion that may only be slightly off kilter to the hive mind.

Practically yes, despite the way that they ought to be used.

It's such a shame. Lemmy should be a place where we collectively share ideas and debate. Comments should only ever be downvoted if they're off topic, hateful or misleading. However, in reality people get downvoted mostly because someone simply doesn't like or wholly agree with the comment.

It's still better here than reddits awful circlejerks but not by much and we should be weary of devolving to that state.

Lemmy has a higher NAFO troll bot to human ratio than reddit. The larger communities are moderated by CIA supportive of mainstream disinformation media, as is reddit. Though there is less zionist-supremacist moderation on Lemmy.

Zero anti-war presence on Lemmy for instance is in a way a much stronger groupthink mentality here than on reddit. The exception is there doesn't seem to be a supreme zionist supremacist mod capable of site ban.

Groupthink happens, to answer your question.

The "I like this" and the "I'm a dipshit" buttons.

Even if I'd technically agree with the downvote, if you do it I lose respect for you. No one deserves that instant fast food validation that they're better than someone. You're not.

Edit: this is an interesting post to downvote. You're just agreeing with me.