944
Shooting your shot with a cannon
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
944 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
11729 readers
1673 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, sure, it's an "obvious truth" to you when you block the 4/5ths of people who disagree.
I don't block people who disagree. I block people who abuse downvotes. Downvote does not mean "disagree," and if you use it like that, then you are abusing downvotes. Perhaps you are unaware, but comment downvotes, like all of the content data on the fediverse, are public information.
People who disagree and express it via their comments without downvoting are fine normal humans whose comments at least have the chance of adding value to the world.
People who downvote a simple truth because they don't like it, or who downvote to meme, are people who add no value to the world, and so blocking them only increases the signal-to-noise ratio. I strongly encourage everybody to look up the people who downvoted that comment and block them all.
What a fucking crybaby. There, that's public information too.
People who complain about getting downvoted and announce that they block anyone who downvotes them and encourage others to do the same add no value to the world.
No one fucking cares!
They do though. Lemmy would be much better if people wouldn't downvote when they disagree. They are signaling that they don't want to know about inconvenient opinions. That silences open and honest conversations.
The general sentiment (don't downvote just because you disagree) is correct, but the context of it is a bit different.
The comment heavily implies ("... simple truth...") that their statement is reasonable and correct. But in reality, their statement is whackadoo nonsense and downvoting that kind of thing is completely reasonable.
Not really. Lemmy would be much better if people stopped complaining about getting downvoted though.
How do you figure? No complaining would be nice, but wouldn't lemmy fully drift into a self-inflicted filter bubble?
No, the people who frequent communities tend to upvote/downvote more. On the collective level that results in the stuff people in that community want to see drifting to the top, and the stuff they don't want to see drifting to the bottom. That filters out a lot of bullshit and makes the user experience better.
It's not like algorithms are being manipulated to promote a profit motive or political agenda, or amplify an in-group while marginalizing out-groups, the way corporate social media does.
It's just an organic filtering based on what the community members as a collective do or don't want to see.
If you don't like the vibe of one community, go find a different one or start your own. Telling people to stop downvoting you is just petulant.
Don't you think that people restrict themselves if they are downvoted for opinions that go against the majority? Dull people like me write their opinion anyway but I think more nuanced people don't bother writing if that is rejcted anyway.
If I wander into a tankie comm and start calling out tankies for being authoritarian hypocrites, I'll accept the downvotes that I'll inevitably be swarmed with. Sooner or later I'll get banned from the comm because tankies can't tolerate any disagreement or being called out on their hypocrisy and disinformation. Whatever, good riddance. I'll just block that comm and go over to one where everybody shits on tankies. And when the tankies show up there to call everyone shitlibs, we'll downvote them into oblivion. Such is the fediverse. Such is life.
Then if a right-winger shows up and starts spouting fascist rhetoric, we'll all downvote them and probably block them and they'll probably get banned. Again, good riddance. I don't want nazis showing up where I hang out.
That's two extremes. Now there's a whole range in between. If I think someone's being disingenuous or not worth engaging with, I'll just downvote and move on. Unless I chime in to have someone else's back. If someone says something I simply disagree with, I probably won't downvote unless it's an extremely bad take that shouldn't see the light of day, or if I think they're being an asshole, or if they're complaining about being downvoted.
Then there's a whole range where it's worth having an intelligent discussion about the different angles we're approaching the situation from. I think those are the most fulfilling interactions, but also the most rare. But I'm also not going to tolerate heaps of bullshit in a vain hope to turn a frog into an erudite scholar.
I could break this down into more painstaking detail and try to describe a formula by which I decide what's worth downvoting and what's not, but the truth is, that's not how it works because I'm a human and I don't need a graphing calculator to tell me what side of the regular distribution or how many standard deviations the line of best fit is on. I just downvote what I feel like downvoting, and I upvote what I feel like upvoting. It doesn't need to be any more objective or deterministic than that. It's one vote, and if 40 other users happen to agree with me by also downvoting, then so be it.
If you're the one getting downvoted 40 times, just get over it. You'll have a miserable experience here if you can't learn to do that.