The downzap game is becoming annoying and disturbing. To me, it no longer seems like just a matter of liking or disliking a post. Until now, downzaps have been seen as a sign that you don't like a post. So, you don't like a post, you downzap it. Fine. But this is not fair at all. In a forum where freedom of speech is respected, downzaps seem to me like a denial of free speech, because a downzap has an impact on the ranking of a post. In other words, you are telling the other person, who has shared an opinion that many people don't like, but which is his own opinion, and you downzap him, shutting his mouth. You are telling him: We don't want you to express your opinions. Then set conditions for being accepted into Stacker News and don't lie that this is a free forum.
I have been here for a very long time. Many good stackers who used to write here back then are no longer here today, and this shows that this forum is losing the values it once had. Back then, downzaps were completely meaningless. If you didn't like a post, you simply didn't interact with it: you didn't zap it, you didn't comment on it, but you respected the other person's freedom of speech.
Another problem I see with downzaps is the fact that downzaps are being used not simply because you don't like the post, but because you don't like that particular stacker either. So, you may have made a good post, but two or three stackers with whom you have had a debate and disagreed with their opinions simply downzap you, to shut your mouth, so that you don't post anymore. Because, regardless of the content, they will downzap you, because they don't like you as a person, not the post. I have seen many posts that did not deserve a downzap, but one (or several) stackers had given them one. This is unfair.
This last category of stackers seems very low to me. They seem to me like people without integrity and cowards. Hiding behind anonymity, they downzap all the stackers they don't like as individuals.
@K00b should review the downzap rules. In my humble opinion, downzaps should not be anonymous. I should know that such-and-such a stacker gave me a downzap. Also, a downzap should be accompanied by concrete reasons why such-and-such a stacker is giving a downzap.
This would make the situation more transparent and give the person who posts a chance to understand why they were downzapped, so that they could keep it in mind when posting again. But it would also hold the person who gives the downzap accountable, making them give a reason why they are downzapping.
Let's discuss this issue.
What do you think?
What does @K00b think about this situation?
Back then, scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters couldn't boost and self zap, or get other scammers, trolls, bots, and nutters to zap their posts into prominent visibility. Back then, we had trust weighting zaps/boosts, preventing scammers, trolls, bots, and nutters from gaining visibility disproportionate to what our version of consensus decided.
Today, downzapping is the only tool stackers have to fight scammers, trolls, bots, and nutters.
Unless you've read the mind of every downzapper, we don't know this to be true. It probably is true sometimes, but I personally downzap scams, trolls, bots, and nutters because I want to save other people from drowning in scams, trolls, bots, and nutters.
This doesn't solve the problem you have as well as you think it does. I can just spin up a fresh one-off account, give a reason like "hahahahaha," and downzap. These problems aren't present for lack of me thinking about them. These problems aren't as trivial as "@k00b should just do xyz. problem solved."
I think, nay I am fairly certain, downzapping is less of a problem than scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters boosting and zapping themselves/each other. Unless of course, one is a scammer, troll, bot, or nutter. So, we will be prioritizing fixes for scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters boosting and zapping themselves/each other.
Really strange to hear you say that since you are using downzaps to cover up scam reports instead of using them against the scammers?... I've been trying to protect the community against Justin Shocknet draining their sleeping Lightning wallets, and you've been downzapping my warning:
@K00b, What do you think about this post? Does it look like a "scammers, trolls (including concern trolls), bots, and nutters" kind of post to you? It's downzappd 1000.
Why?
Because someone does not like it? I don't think so. If someone doesn't like it, he can comment here and express his disagreement.
I'd guess it's because this has been discussed extensively over the last week (e.g. there's already a post on the frontpage discussing related issues), let alone over the last months, and whoever downzapped it is upset at seeing more, in their view, naive takes on what @k00b should do.
It's going to be very hard having a productive discussion when we assume what's in other people's heads.
They could and I hope they do, but given the current algorithm, it's also acceptable for them to attempt to curate their and others' experiences by downzapping content - just like it's acceptable for the anyone who agrees with you to upzap this content.
Question for you now that I've answered yours: do you think upzapping your own content with an alt account(s) is fair?
Alright, your position is clear. You'd rather see stackers fighting each other with downzaps than trying to find a better and more acceptable solution. That's fair enough. Your forum, your rules.
When did I say that "upzapping your own content with an alt account(s) is fair"?
There you go reading other people's minds again. This time mine.
I never said you did. Please answer the question though.
No, I don't think it's fair, for sure.
Don't you realize that's a ridiculous argument? I don't need to read anyone's mind to make a logical deduction. I look at the facts and draw a logical conclusion. I'm not stupid. Come on, man. I used to respect your opinions and the way you reason, but with the way you're communicating now, I'm starting to question everything. Maybe I was wrong.
So you've never done it?
You're are telling me what I think and what I intend to do and I disagree. Nowhere did I say what you said I'd "rather see."
That's a good habit.
While you're questioning everything, you may want to question whether you're wrong right now too.
Go fuck yourself @k00b. Do a favor to all us here...
It's a complicated situation, but I agree with much of what you say. At first I noticed it with hot button political issues like Gaza. Downzappers argue that they are protecting stackers from scammers, but, of course, what makes them the sole arbiter of what is a scam?
I hope your post generates some discussion before it gets downzapped into oblivion.
I zapped this post more than what I usually zap and now I see someone already downzapped it with a 1000 sats. It really feels bad when a post that is no spam, no slop but downzapped..
If you don't like someone in your house, do you beat them with stick?
Actually, yes. Bad example? 😀
Got it. House = Family, now?
You will still say yes, then I'll say - House = wife 😜
It's already being downzapped. So, I wouldn't be so optimistic.
You are touching on some difficult philosophical issues about what to do about the "commons", where my actions in the commons naturally impacts everyone else's experience.
For example, zaps and downzaps have equal effect on ranking a post. Why are upzaps ok but downzaps not? Why are boosts ok?
In the end, everyone has freedom of speech here, but who has the right for their speech to be heard in the commons? It's a tough question.
Someone downzapped this post already!
Yes I agree that there needs to be some kinda rules.
Yes, but I don't see @k00b taking this into account. 😞
Today are around 200k downzaps in rewards. Definitely SILENCING.