Because to me, they seem like de facto "Agree and “Disagree” buttons, whether or not it was the intent.
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”?
That is, are upvotes “yays” and downvotes “boos”?
I still upvote posts in news communities informing me of terrible things, so upvote isn’t necessarily a yay. Downvote might be boo, though
hm, I do think what I meant by “yay” is some kind of supportive or positive emotional response, which is still happening when you are upvoting terrible news for being informative, i.e. what you are responding to with “yay” is being informed and wishing others to be informed, not the content of the news itself.
(For context I’m drawing on the metaethical theory of emotivism here as a framework.)
"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.
That would be nice but, no, it’s the agree/disagree button just like Reddit. There is honestly very little difference between Lemmy and reddit. Mostly just the numbers.
They should be more about “good post or bad post”, so something that may be disagreeable gets upvotes if it is well stated.
I don’t care how well stated some anti-vax or flat-earth bullshit is … It’ll get downvoted regardless because I disagree.
That would just be misinformation
Sure, according to us. But you don’t actually need to be right to think you’re right. If someone believes the earth is flat, they’ll downvote “globe-talk” as misinformation, just as it was intended! So it all just comes back to (dis)agreeing.
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 precisely how I use up and down votes.
I would also, as an example upvote something I think was incorrect if the was an insightful reply to it I felt people should see.
To clarify, I’m not talking about a troll post with a clever “dunk” reply.
Trolls always get downvoted.
They shouldn’t be used as such, but frequently are. It is even more difficult to distinguish between disagreement and insufficient argumentation.
If they were, they’d be called Agree and Disagree buttons.
