Their original complaint was that OP called AtProto “Bluesky”, presumably that’s what they are still complaining about. And reasonably IMO. Saying “Bluesky” instead of “AtProto” is like saying “Substack” instead of “blog”.

You mean calling it Bluesky (instead of AtProto). You seem confused about your own gripe! But I agree with the point.

First, perhaps read what I wrote rather than just the title, because I am guessing with 102% certainty that you didn’t.

Second, “seriously”: personally I prefer the idea of a world where people take each other seriously. Where they treat each other with respect, understanding, tolerance. No, that is not the world we have here, and in any case it seems you’ve given up on it already.

The data about downvoter identity would need to be either embedded in the HTML (ideal but I doubt it) or available for async JS via an API (complicated and slow). In any case I don’t have the time so in practice I will just have to put up with it or leave.

But yep, this feature would clearly be a task for front-end scripting.

Fair enough (indeed, I agree) but that is not what I am asking for here.

If I am “sensitive”, imagine what the average must be! I’m not at all what you’re imagining. Nobody would call me sensitive. I’m super argumentative, I’m the one who speaks up in groups, I’m the one who gets angry and makes a scene in the shop. At school I would stand up for people being bullied. So this is really a bit of a misunderstanding. What I don’t like is exactly that: bullying. And spitefulness and herd behavior, i.e. groups targeting individuals. It totally triggers me and this is how I see downvoting, alongside all the needless insults and mockery and juvenility.

Cards on the table - I’ve been on the edge of the social internet since the 90s and I think social media has become a disaster for society. I had hopes for the fediverse (no advertising algo incentives), and it is better, but only marginally. It seems humans just tend to behave badly when they can hide behind screens.

And to be clear, I never asked to “ban” anyone. Of course not. I just want not to have to see people who raise my blood pressure. It would be totally possible technically.

So I’m not the only one after all. Thanks for the moral support.

Sure, I understand this “just relax” position, it’s perfectly legitimate and it’s widely shared - HERE. In the post I mentioned my theory about selection bias - what if everyone here thought like you (plural) simply because all the others have left or just wouldn’t stomach being in such a aggressive environment in the first place? I’m a guy but how many females do you think are here, and why is that? What if I’m the only one complaining because I’m the single normie who somehow stuck it out this far and then had the balls to speak out? I’d argue that downvoting is the distillation of what a TON of people dislike about social media - the bad faith, the meanness of spirit, the herd dynamics. You’ll reply “Oh come on! Just relax” and you’ll be sincere, but try to imagine how these things might feel to people more sensitive than you. There are tons of them and I think it would have been nice if federated social media had provided a better experience.

AGAIN: this is not a criticism of you personally! You seem like a nice person and you’re polite and sincere (and admirably phlegmatic). But I really think in terms of psychology I’m closely to the average in the population. 90% of people do not participate actively on social media. To me it’s pretty clear that this problem of ambient hostility (perfectly represented by downvoting) is a big part of the reason.

That’s a fair position and honestly I wish I could see it that way. Perhaps it relates to personality. For me it has always felt pretty clear: the downvote button is a hate button. It’s otherwise redundant: “up” or “not up” is already a binary system which functions as an entirely adequate quality-control mechanism (with “report” being for abuse). If you scroll down this discussion you’ll see that literally everything I’ve said, even positive things like “I agree” or “Thanks” has been downvoted by multiple people. The button is being used a tool of mindless gratuitous hate, I don’t know how else to put it.

Obviously with this particular post I was asking for it. But it’s been the same story every time I’ve tried to launch any kind of discussion or debate. It’s such a disappointment.

Anyway. Hadn’t heard of Habr, clearly I won’t be going anyway near! Not sure how much longer I’ll be here either, to be honest.

My point of view is explained above. I consider downvoting toxic. Everything about it. I have never been entirely comfortable in a community where people are doing it to each other (and me). Just as I’m not comfortable in a room where people are booing and jeering each other. It’s not that weird or even unusual a point of view. It’s the reason not all community software has this “feature”. Lemmy has it and I had an idea of opt-in functionality that would work around it completely. But most users here seem very protective of their right to downvote and to inflict their downvoting on others and they are very clear that they do not want users to have any option to escape from it.

So be it. You’re right to say “just fork it” but I have neither the time nor the skills to fork forum software. So I’ll probably just continue to gradually leave the communities I participate in (now down to only about 3 that I value) and eventually I’ll leave altogether like I did with corporate social media. A bit of a shame but there are worse tragedies in the world.

Thanks for the advice and feedback, which was far more constructive and generous-spirited than most in this discussion.

This kind of comment just confirms the whole premise of my idea.

As others have said,it will undermine the purpose of the voting, for visibility.

First, this is premised on the shaky idea that a bunch of randos agreeing or not agreeing with a title makes for a useful metric for visibility. Second, I don’t see how it would undermine anything at all. Essentially what I’m asking for is just more sophisticated blocking functionality, so I can get a breather from all the hate and vituperation here.

I would rather a system that allowed people to vote just for their own uses like modifying how their feed shows up without letting people know they voted it down or up or sideways.

Excellent idea. Never thought of that.

The irony here is precisely that I seem to be the only one who is not marking other people’s opinions as “bad”. Everyone is doing it to me, I’m doing it to nobody, and yet I’m accused of intolerance. Interesting.

You’re right this won’t happen. The people who agree with me about this have already left! But I had to put this out there, because I know this feature would really improve my experience here. Which has been mediocre due to all the incessant gratuitous negativity. As I think this post proves once again.

Again, I promise you I have no problem with being contradicted. I have in-person friends who I disagree with on politics and it is not an issue. I have a problem with being told “I am publicly tagging your contribution as bad”. That is what downvoting is.

Anyway, I understand your take, I’ve heard it a hundred times. You don’t think it’s a big deal. You’re in the majority. I get it. I would just like the option not to have to see the content of people who are publicly declaring - even though nothing obliges them to - that what I have to say is worthless.

Please read my post more closely.

That’s not how blocking works. Or perhaps I was not clear enough. I’m just asking for better controls on the existing “block” feature, that’s all. It would change nothing for people who don’t use it.

How so? In functional terms this exact feature already exists: blocking. Essentially I’m just asking for more controls over it, because it’s too brutal (and fastidious) as things stand. Details could be discussed.

Might indeed be hard to implement (congratulations for making approximately the 2nd piece of constructive feedback in this whole discussion BTW). The level of granularity would have to be limited. As described, it sounds like a front-end (i.e. Javascript-based) feature. But time-limited auto-blocks are definitely possible in theory. Not exactly what I asked for but I would definitely use it.

But why should I care what someone who downvotes me thinks? They could just as easily have disagreed respectfully with my post, without downvoting it and so tagging it as BAD for everyone. As I am doing right now with you (PS: meaning disagreeing without downvoting).