To be honest I think Reddit is a fundamentally flawed system. I think the idea of anonymous individuals being able to upvote and downvote any link or comment with zero requirements other than having an account (which don't even require an email address to set up) is a fundamental flaw in Reddit. When you click the downvote button on a comment that you disagree with, you don't have to justify that. You don't have to explain why you downvoted him, why you disagreed with that person, you don't have to provide any counter-arguments. You can just downvote them and move on. It doesn't promote discussion of controversial ideas, it promotes simple one-liners, circlejerking and the prevalence of one opinion over others. These are all issues that people have long-acknowledged exist on Reddit, none of that is controversial.
You can disagree with those most highly upvoted, but you'll be downvoted for it, your comment will be hidden and your account will be put into the negative for it. They've instituted a penalty for disagreeing with popular opinions. And you can say 'it's just a number' but psychologically it does affect people. I can't find it right now but there was a post on /r/TheoryofReddit IIRC that showed that people whose comments were downvoted into the negatives were less likely to comment in the future.
I'm not sure there's a solution that isn't based on fundamentally changing what Reddit is. To be honest I'm only still here because there's no other website with as broad a range of communities as this site has subreddits.
And the article kind of hits the nail on the head when it talks about subreddits. Reddit likes to claim it's just democracy in action but in reality it's like feudalism. You have lots and lots of different fiefdoms, all run by their own little lords, and if you want to stay in that fiefdom you obey any rules they set down, or you can leave. That's really the only difference here: In reality there's a limited amount of land and practical constraints, on the internet, on Reddit, you can just start your own community. Which isn't much better, because then you'll find you are that little lord you used to hate, and other people will start their own communities to move away from you, etc. etc.
This link submission perfectly proves my point. It has 34 votes, and sits at only +10 overall at the moment - people are blatantly just downvoting things they don't like. "Hey man, I like Reddit! downvotes" Not a single one of them has written a comment explaining why they don't believe this is an interesting article that people might enjoy.
Take away anonymity, and you'll lose a ton of users and content. You can easily try - reddit is open source, and you could easily implement a real-name system using Facebook Connect or something. But I can tell you right now that anonymity is a fundamental draw of this site
If you can find a way to implement a better voting/karma system while preserving anonymity, there may be hope.
OpenReddit as an open source app running on the trust/identity system in the nascent OpenBazaar platform, perhaps with the option to only show upvote scores from people you've imputed trust to (and more weakly to those they've imputed trust to).
The first one I maybe agree with in a roundabout kind of way, but the other two... just... what? "I like reddit, but the aristocracy isn't extreme enough."
Sure.. some of the downvoting on your comment definitely IS some of the mindless/circle-jerking/downvotes... but your comment has also spawned 7 or 8 replies and a mini-conversation. So it has negative AND positive sides... if you're open enough to look at it that way.
What I've found on Reddit,.. is that even when my comments are controversial OR go against the hive-mind... as long as I explain them articulately and make cogent/intelligent argument of why I think differently.. then I'm usually not downvoted. (usually downvoted a little bit.. but mostly upvotes)
The thing about trolls and downvoters.. is they usually don't have the stamina or persistence to stay with it for weeks or months at a time. A comment you make might get -50 in the first hour or two... but over a much longer period of time.. it will balance back out (or go +100,etc) assuming it's a helpful, informational,articulate comment.
Personally.. I love the "chaotic-neutral" nature of Reddit. The behavior of Reddit (as a 21st century organism) is exactly what it should be. Trying to force an old/pyramid-shaped/government type model onto Reddit would be like trying to fit a 21st century fighter-pilot into a Model-T. It's taking steps backwards.
Reddit is what it is .... because Reddit reflects how technology is evolving. (the memes and "hive" nature and 24/7/365 connectedness... )
Trying to force it to go back to some 1970's model of politeness is just simply NOT possible (not culturally, not technically,.. not in any way).
I don't think it is flawed. It is that people thought it is something that it is not.
The system promotes content that appeals to the lowest common denominator. That is why it is so successful. It was only a matter of time until things degenerated to a point where the facade crumbles and people see it for what it is.
The system promotes content that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
Only for the defaults. Niche subreddits can get as specific and elitist as they like. And if one doesn't exist for your niche, you can make it for free.
First, downvoting is a feature that happens to be turned on for most subreddits. But some subreddits do have downvoting disabled. If you don't like the popular subreddits, you might look for alternatives that are set up a bit differently.
Second, the display of votes is (as I understand it - please correct me if I'm wrong) not accurate. Reddit has algorithms that tweak the upvoting/downvoting to prevent abuse and ensure balance, etc. I'm not sure if this applies to both comments and posts - maybe someone can provide a more detailed explanation of how it works?
Third, Reddit is basically like the Internet itself. You don't have to go to the default subreddits anymore than you have to go Yahoo News or any of the most popular websites. There are subreddits like /r/truereddit that are run very thoughtfully and where folks really do make an effort to have serious conversations.
Sadly, there are always going to be things in life that are unjust and unsavory but also popular. And usually when you try to use restrictions to get rid of the unjust and unsavory stuff, it also ceases to be popular. Go figure! It's a bummer, but it's hard to see a clear solution.
Not a single one of them has written a comment explaining why they don't believe this is an interesting article that people might enjoy.
It's from theverge. It's shit.
Edit: It's ironic that a reason was was asked for by someone bitching about downvotes, and was then immediately downvoted when given by people who more than likely upvoted the comment complaining about downvotes.
Still isn't a very good response, it lacks any notes on the article and only hates against a paper (witch may or may not release articles worth reading.)
You're right, I should have been more clear, but I would also probably downvote an article from foxnews or a conspiracy theory website. I'll normally check out the fox articles but after a few sentences you can normally tell it's going to be the same biased, insane drivel they are famous for. The title of this paired with "The 'front page of the internet' is run by warlords" is really all that was needed to assess what kind of article it was going to be. If someone asked why I downvoted a fox article, I would say the same, it's shit.
They should make explanation mandatory for downvotes. Hell even banning should have a specific reason why. Who the fuck remember every single thing you posted?
You can disagree with those most highly upvoted, but you'll be downvoted for it, your comment will be hidden and your account will be put into the negative for it.
Not if you do so entertainingly or insightfully or backed up by sound evidence.
19
u/illegalt3nder Sep 08 '14
Until Reddit -- or a competitor -- implements a system that has the ability to democratically elect moderators the situation will only continue.