"Let shills run the platform"
Is that your argument?
No it isnt. I gave you several reasons why the current implementation is not better for thwarting bad actors.
A shill is a paid agent trying to hock something like a website. Is that what you mean? If you mean a bad actor like a troll or a brigader, be specific.
The reason is simple. Bad actors have less time to disagree. Forcing people to engage drowns out shills and limits their influence significantly.
Keep an eye on it, sure. Give it time and then tell me I'm wrong.
If 100% of people voted, stealing an election wouldn't be possible.
If 100% of people speak up, the shill noise reveals itself.
A community that can encourage less lurkers has an extreme advantage when it comes to free speech.
Bad actors have less time to disagree.
Why? What does that even mean?
Forcing people to engage drowns out shills and limits their influence significantly.
Well then why have upvotes? We’ll just leave comments that we agree!
If 100% of people voted, stealing an election wouldn't be possible.
Not only is it irrelevant, I dont even agree with it. It just means a bunch of stupid uninformed people are voting.
What the fuck is a shill? You keep repeating it over and over like it means something. I don’t think you know. As far as I can tell its just Q parlance for anyone that is skeptical of Q.
I dont need to give it time. I used Voat which had downvoting, and it was way better than this. The benefits of downvoting outweigh the cons. Same with guns and free speech. I dont need to think about it.
downvotes are just too dangerous, it’s too much power for any single user to have.
Get out.
False. You gave a theory, but you fail to recognize the effectiveness of allowing everyone to immediately identify bad actors.
You are wrong. Get over it.
You are wrong.
What the fuck? Its your subjective opinion that downvotes are satan’s plaything. Certainly not an objective fact.
You havent established at all why no downvoting is advantageous vis a vis bad actors.
You haven’t established why demoting someones comment is anti-free speech but my right to downvote isnt.
You havent adressed any of the cons of having no downvotes that I pointed out, or the pros of having downvotes.
You havent adressed any of the points I made about how the cons of downvotes could be mitigated.
Why should I accept your opinion as objective fact when you refuse to even discuss the pros and cons of either implementation? When you just cite “muh shills” or “muh free speech” alternately whenever it suits you with out explaining why? You dont even explain what you mean by shill behavior. I mean do shills have free speech?
Is this “legitimate conversation and maximum engagement?” Or is this you just abitrarily just declaring that your opinion of downvoting is the correct one and mine is failed theory? I call fake news.
You dont give a fuck about free speech or you wouldnt have instigated this exchange with me instead of respecting my opinion on downvoting. You just need to “correct” my thinking . And finally in the end, the mask comes off and Im capriciously told “You’re wrong”. Because. Like you’re Anthony Fauci or something. Nobody’s allowed to have an opinion on downvoting other than yours? Fuck that.
I dont know why you had to start shit with me over my perfectly valid opinion that downvotes are good and useful and my idea of free speech but I guess it’s because you’re a SHILL. Do I need to prove you’re a shill or even state what I think a shill is? Nah, I think I’ll be arbitrary as fuck like you are.
(post is archived)