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