
The argument against "downvote". A slight violation of the First Amendment - rokhayakebe
There has been several discussions lately about the quality of stories/comments on HN and several users are growing angry at certain stories ranking high on the front page.<p>Several users including PG have proposed to add "downvote" for stories, thus prevents news "lynching" Michael Arrington, Twitter etc... to go far up the hill.<p>Assuming a story or comment meets the YC standards (grammar, vocabulary...) and is not disrespectful to anyone or any group of people, I think "downvoting" is against evolution. It is a few step backwards for a community driven news portal.<p>I have witnessed several times users being downmoded simply because they did not agree with another user. Although they may give a valid reason, they are being prosecuted for having their own thoughts about a particular subject.
This is bad to the point where if one cares for karma, which noone should, they may slightly alter their thoughts so they won't be condemned for thinking differently.<p>"Thinking differently". Now this is not to say that all users must have opposing views, but it is truly acceptable to have a different opinion, and noone should suffer the loss of karma points for having an opinion. This reminds me of Galileo's story.<p>I suggested yesterday that "silence is louder than downvoting" and that cost me 3 Karma points. Being  hit for speaking your mind is clearly a "violation of the first amendment". Now, how is this different from firing an employee who doesn't agree with a certain company policy. I am confident that if a user could see who downvotes his stories, there will be a lot less of that. If you are doing something you would not do if you knew your identity will be made public, then there is "integrity" in question here.<p>Downvote is a clear step backward. How can you evolve in an environment where you risk being prosecuted for speaking your mind? This concept sounds like Iraq under Saddam Hussein. If one does not agree with another, then one should simply reply and make his argument in a civilized manner. Words are your tools, and if ones need "immunitions" to get his point across then one needs to learn how to communicate. Only those who  cannot defend themselves using words, would use bullets.<p>I truly apologize if anyone feels offend as it is not the purpose of this article. Each and everyone is  free to speak his mind respectfully and elegantly without fear of retributions.<p>EDIT: The first amendment enforces the FREEDOM OF  SPEECH, which is disencouraged by Donwvotes.
======
willarson
First, the first amendment has absolutely no relevance here, since it is a
restriction being placed on government, not on individuals. There is a chronic
habit to misinterpret this as "I can say what I want, wherever I want,
whenever, however", which is an interesting __opinion __, but one with no
correlation with the legal definition. The 1st isn't intended to--and doesn't
--defend the imagined right to express your views on other people's servers.

Next, your real life examples are a bit sensationalist. The difference is that
Saddam was killing people for expressing opinions, whereas we want to downvote
poorly expressed and undefended opinions. A more apt comparison would be the
university setting, where challenging opinions will be accepted on the merits
of their presenter's ability to defend them. The same applies to Galileo, who
was persecuted for his theories (not, note opinions). I believe that we'd be
overjoyed to have a Galileo posting here, since he would link to his
mathematics and let us examine the feasibility of his theories for ourselves.

Finally, to address the meat of your argument against downvoting, I think you
have misdiagnosed why people are downvoted. I rarely see people downvoted for
their opinions, but frequently see people downvoted for failing to
__effectively defend or explain their opinions __. Since we are trying to
foster discussion, the actual opinion is usually less important than
explaining how they have arrived at their opinion, and why their opinion is
viable. Simply expressing an opinion is noise in a conversation often boils
down to noise, and opinions on their own won't feed the starving mind: the
meat of the argument lies in explaining opinions.

Thus, I believe that the downvote allows the community to exert a stronger
preference for comments that add value. If you want to avoid being downvoted,
express you opinion _and then defend it_.

~~~
Diogenes
"Simply expressing an opinion is noise in a conversation often boils down to
noise, and opinions on their own won't feed the starving mind: the meat of the
argument lies in explaining opinions." - willarson

To play devil's advocate here (because I happen to agree with your comment on
the whole), the argument could be made that a downvote (without attribution or
explanation) is just this sort of noise.

~~~
SwellJoe
Very low amplitude noise. I'd rather folks downvote than spout nonsense just
to say something in opposition.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to downvote, right?
What is the argument here, I don't want other people to see it but I can't say
why?

~~~
SwellJoe
_If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to downvote,
right?_

If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to post a comment,
right?

The question isn't, "Should someone be allowed to be stupid." It's "Should we
give them an outlet for their disagreement that causes less disruption to the
conversation?"

We can't solve stupidity. But, we can make it have less impact. I don't know
that downvotes help prevent stupidity, or help reduce the impact of
stupidity...but I think it does.

Of course, you're assuming that the post being downvoted or commented on has
merit by virtue of someone having taken time to write it. I'm assuming that
everybody (including me) says stupid stuff all the time, and a downvote is a
low-friction, low-amplitude means of saying "I think this is stupid". It
doesn't censor anyone, and it doesn't prevent people from having a discourse
with that person if they think it's worth their time.

That's all I'm saying. (Though I could be having a stupid moment right now.)

------
motoko
This post and conversation is embarrassing. With sophomoric ramblings like
this at the top of HN, I wouldn't introduce this community to colleagues.

~~~
rory096
Honestly, this post is exactly why we need downvotes (and I'm surprised it's
been upvoted so much). I agree that the threadstarter is wrong, but explaining
your viewpoint and why you think he's wrong contributes far more to the
discussion than unnecessary personal attacks.

------
edw519
"silence is louder than downvoting"

Your entire quote, a response to my earlier comment, in context, was:

"Well said edw519. Silence is louder than Downvoting."

Oddly, I was, and still am, not sure what you meant. This was one of those
comments that can mean 2 very different things, depending on the
interpretation of the reader.

On one hand, it sounds like agreement, with a semi-profound simile attached.

On the other hand, it sounds like mocking, perhaps with a little attitude.

Do you see how it could be interpreted either way, depending possibly on the
mood of the reader?

You've just entered territory where we've all been. When we can't see your
eyes and body language, hear your tonality, and have never met you, all we
have is the words on the page. They have to stand on their own. So they did.
And the community responded.

At one point, I resorted to using tags like <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> because I
had to; no matter how "smart" my readers were, the words alone didn't have the
power to stand on their own. I had to give them a little help.

Exactly what did you mean? Just tell us, openly and honestly, and let us
surprise you with our open response. For a community that puts a premium on
the clever smarta$$ retort, we still value sincerity above all.

So instead of worrying about the rules of the game, why not just explain what
you meant and let the chips fall where they may. In a forum like this, that's
pretty much the best any of us can do.

~~~
rokhayakebe
"I almost never downvote....The only time I downvote is if something is
extremely inappropriate, .....I never downvote when I disagree....If I
disagree, I reply with my disagreement.....Not much to learn from
downvotes.......".

You explained why you believe downvotes are not the best option in your book.
That is what I agreed with.

I apologize for going further and adding "Silence is louder than downvoting"
as it may imply you said so.

"Exactly what did you mean? Just tell us, openly and honestly, and let us
surprise you with our open response. For a community that puts a premium on
the clever smarta$$ retort, we still value sincerity above all."

I have always been open, and honest, and sincere. And being open and sincere
and honest has cost me a few karma points and so will they again when I hit
"reply". I respect each and everyone here.

"So instead of worrying about the rules of the game, why not just explain what
you meant and let the chips fall where they may. In a forum like this, that's
pretty much the best any of us can do."

I take it you thought I was being sarcastic. I agreed with you and I failed to
explain why I did. Again I have been participating "in a forum like this" for
a few days and I respect anyone here and I would not undermine anyone's
comment or post.

EDIT: I apologize if some users (Thaumaturgy...)have a hard time understand my
writing. Indeed English is not my first nor second language, but I am trying
my best to improve my communication skills. Thank you.

~~~
edw519
+1

I'm not sure why you got downvoted.

Then again, I _never_ really understand other people's voting. That's just the
way it goes.

Your English is fine. Keep on posting!

~~~
dreish
I would assume it is karma bombing in lieu of being able to downvote the
dreaded first-amendment post.

------
mhb
Unless the US government has taken over Hacker News, the first amendment is
not relevant.

~~~
cheponis
His reference to the First Amendment is clearly allegorical - is that not
obvious?

~~~
mhb
From his edit, it is clear that it is not.

------
hugh
Bravo, this is the best argument in favour of downvotes (or, indeed,
fonwvotes) I've seen so far.

------
dous
Regarding stories, I think off-topic ones should be downvoted/deleted. Off-
topic being defined as "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports,
unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of
pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV
news, it's probably off-topic." Having this text or a link to the guidelines
on the submit page would probably be nice. (see
<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>)

Regarding comments, there are also some guidelines and not following those
guidelines clearly deserve a downvote. I personally think that downvotes
shouldn't be used to "say that you disagree". I prefer that it be used to
filter out useless comments.

------
wumi
"I am confident that if a user could see who downvotes his stories, there will
be a lot less of that. If you are doing something you would not do if you knew
your identity will be made public, then there is "integrity" in question
here."

This, to me, is the most interest assertion in his whole prognosis. How
_would_ people use downvote if they knew all could see who had done it?

~~~
breily
It seems that downvotes would definitely decrease - I would bet that a large
portion of them would not have been made in public. If nothing else it might
increase the number of replies to a post - It would be slightly embarrassing
to see your name as one of the downvoters if you didn't also reply to the
post.

Enabling downvotes on submissions could also be interesting - maybe to
downvote a submission you have to comment about it or about why you downvoted
it. Revealing voting could add an additional feature to the site - if we see
that someone who likes the same stuff voted something up, then we'll probably
read it.

~~~
wumi
I think the general attitude here, is to provide the functionality to a)
disagree and to b) bury bad content.

In those separate issues, transparency becomes an issue, particularly with the
downvote. I'm definitely in favor of promoting transparency in order to
disagree or bury bad content.

------
icey
Wow, I'm speechless. You need to get some sense of scale, buddy.

~~~
xlnt
You aren't speechless. Accuracy, please ;p

------
thaumaturgy
I'm going to assume that English isn't your first language, and not address
the language of your post.

The ability to downmod a submission meets a practical need on sites like this
one. As it stands now, without the ability to downmod a submission, it's
fairly easy for a small group of people to dictate what does and does not show
up on the front page. Your submission, for example, is currently in the number
2 position, with just 9 votes (slow day).

The ability to downmod allows the community as a whole to say, "this is not
the sort of article we want on this site."

The way downmodding is used, the particulars of how it's set up, depends on
the site and the community. I don't think there's as much danger of people
downmodding something simply because they don't want anybody "speaking their
mind"; I think this whole thread is proof positive of that, where nobody
agrees with you and yet a number of people are spending time discussing it.

Also, I figure there's a good chance that there're enough smart people
involved here that somebody can figure out how to make downmodding work well.

Based on what you wrote, I would've guessed you for a troll, but you've been
around on here for over a year and have around 900 karma. So maybe not.

------
DanielBMarkham
EDIT: This was a very poor post, but I think there's enough in there to
discuss (aside from the awful first amendment stuff and the rhetorical
rambling that went on -- please, learn to structure your arguments!)

I'd like to bring up one interesting point: Karma shouldn't matter -- yet the
entire site is built on karma: who has more can downmod comments, top posters
are regularly identified, all sorts of fun articles come out about how karma
relates to posting style, etc.

You can't have a karma system and then say "but it doesn't mean something"
Surely it's not the end-all or the greatest thing ever created, but the entire
reason karma works is that it has some value to the users.

So however the discussion proceeds, can we please get beyond this "but karma
shouldn't matter when you post" That's like saying it's okay to lose a couple
of points in tennis if you're having a good time. It's a true statement, but
it does not describe how one plays tennis. (instead it describes how having
fun is more important than the rules, which is true of all sorts of things) If
we're going to discuss one particular rule/moderation system, then such
comments are unhelpful, imo.

------
jamongkad
Sigh I miss the days when Hacker News was YCNews and all we ever talked about
was how to start a business and what programming languages we love to hate.

------
DougBTX
> I think "downvoting" is against evolution

As a side note, evolution requires killing the weak.

When people say they want HN to go back to the Start-up News days, or Reddit
to go back to the Lisp days, they are saying that they don't want the site to
evolve, they want it to stay the same. But they do evolve, the strongest ideas
are those that reproduce in the most minds - those which are the lowest common
denominator.

------
melvinram
Even though the 1st amendment (or any amendment for that) has no bearing on
HN, I agree with the spirit of your idea. I remember a month back, someone
said something that I found funny
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=193369>) ... and I put a LOL on it and I
lost karma points for it. Seemed nuts to me.

~~~
soundsop
I think downvoting on an "lol"-type comment is appropriate. Making that sort
of comment adds nothing valuable to the conversation and actually detracts
from the comments by adding unnecessary clutter. Whenever you want to "lol" a
comment, just upvote it.

~~~
melvinram
lol - I couldn't resist :-P

------
gnaritas
The first amendment does not enforce "freedom of speech" as you imply it. It
limits congress from passing laws that limit your freedom of speech, i.e. what
you say is none of the government's business. That doesn't mean squat
elsewhere, you have no rights of "free speech" in privately owned places. If I
don't like what you say I can kick you out of my house, my bar, or off my
website.

------
dhotson
I had an idea about this, you could require a reason when downvoting.

It might make people less likely to downvote stuff unless they have a good
reason. It might also help explain to the original poster why they are being
downvoted.

I'm not really sure what the implications of this would be though. Perhaps it
might make it harder to get rid of obvious trolls and spam.

------
TrevorJ
"against evolution"

What? Protecting a story from the social equivalent of ecological pressure
would actually be the opposite of what you suggest.

"violation of the first amendment"

No it isn't. Karma isn't in the constitution. No one is deleting your story.
No one is forcing you to be silent.

"How can you evolve in an environment where you risk being prosecuted for
speaking your mind? This concept sounds like Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

I believe you mean "persecuted". I don't think getting downmodded counts as
persecution unless you live an incredibly easy and insulated life. Talk to
Tibetan monks or any number of religious or ethnic groups around the world
today who have been hunted, imprisoned or killed to get some perspective.
Saddam? Um, no, if this was like that you'd have been killed for your
perspective. This is NOTHING like that. Period.

------
technoguyrob
I miss PG. The mods need to get back so they mark deads.

------
ivankirigin
This is private property. You have no rights here other than those granted by
the hosts. Start your own site if you have a problem with it.

------
kashif
I think the solution is really simple. Add down voting and make all kinds of
points invisible - or atleast individual karma.

------
imgabe
I agree with your point (we shouldn't have down votes), but not your reasons
for it. As others have said, the first amendment doesn't really apply here.

The real problem with down votes, imo, is that it effectively gives everyone
two votes on a story. First you get your one point for submitting it or voting
it up, then you can get an additional point (relatively) by voting down
everything else on the new page. Now, not everyone will do this, but some
people will, which negatively affects the karma of everyone who submits
stories, providing a disincentive for anything that one isn't sure is going to
be immediately popular. This leads to a decline in the overall quality of
stories. The sad truth is, when you take someone's name and put a number next
to it, there's some people that will just lose their minds trying to get that
number as high as possible. (Not to mention monetary incentives for marketing
firms, as has happened on Digg and probably reddit, too. Maybe that's not as
much of a concern for Hacker News, since the audience has been kept relatively
small)

My solution, when I see a story I don't like on the front page, is to go to
the new page and vote up every story I DO like.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Your problem with downvotes has little to do with the idea of them, and more
to do with the implementation.

It's not hard to implement downvoting in a way that doesn't have the problems
you described.

Also, I would assume that people ordinarily do upvote the submissions they
like. The only way you could be describing anything different is if you meant
that you upvote everything that you don't dislike, which I think runs
completely counter to the idea of upvoting.

~~~
imgabe
So, do you have an example of an implementation that doesn't have this problem
or are you just assuming one exists? If there is one, it must be a well kept
secret, because there hasn't yet been a social news site that's adopted it.

One I've considered is to temporarily suspend down voting after submitting a
story. But this has some unintended consequences in that it unfairly penalizes
the people who submit heavily, who provide a lot of value to the site.

Your assumption that people ordinarily upvote submissions they like isn't
necessarily valid. I usually read the site pretty passively, and only upvote
things I think are really spectacular. It doesn't mean I don't like the other
things I read, just that they didn't really blow me away.

"counter to the idea of upvoting" is a pretty vague phrase. Counter to your
idea maybe, my criteria for upvoting fits my idea of upvoting just fine. Not
everyone thinks of a vote the same way, as another story on the front page
right now points out, this is one of the problems with a site like this.

~~~
thaumaturgy
| So, do you have an example of an implementation that doesn't have this
problem or are you just assuming one exists?

Neither! I'm assuming one _can_ exist. I think I have an idea on how to make
it work; I just don't have a forum to test it on, yet.

------
axod
I'd say a good solution for articles, is to give people a downvote on articles
when they reach a certain level of karma.

As far as comments go, I think it's a far more complex debate, but I think the
current system there works quite well.

------
kyro
If anything, not being able to express your disagreement or displeasure
towards a comment should be considered a violation of the First Amendment.

Also, telling someone that their comment is idiotic by way of reply or down
arrow is far from persecution. It's almost as if in your ideal world,
everyone's comments would be accepted and passed on with glee, without any
sort of counterbalance. If that's the case, the Earth would still be the
center of the universe.

And... no one is preventing you from using the service following a down vote,
it's your choice. Had your internet connection been cut off and your computer
seized following a submission of a less popular or less agreed upon comment,
your argument would hold some validity.

------
eru
How I love US law as an argument in ethic discourses..

(Though I generally agree with rokhayakebe.)

------
mynameishere
_This reminds me of Galileo's story._

Or possibly the Spanish Inquisition.

:/

------
Spyckie
All I can say is, congrats, PG, for making a place on the net important enough
for people to invoke the first amendment.

------
ola
I don't know what to say other than that I was thoroughly disencouraged after
reading this post.

------
LPTS
Dude,

1.) Perspective. This isn't the same at all as saddam and has nothing to do
with the first amendment.

2.) This casual usage of the concept of lynching bothers me. A lot. I would
probably fire someone who threw it around casually like this, on the spot. Go
have a conversation about it with people from the communities that actually
dealt with lynching, and read a damn history book or two. Would you say
Microsoft 'holocausted' a company they bought out or drove out of business?
Fuck no. Don't say 'lynching' in such a casual way. It trivializes decades of
horrible abuse towards an entire race of people and creates an environment
where a lot of people feel subliminal racism. You might not know anyone to
point out to you just how grating things like this sound to people, or
perpetuates racism, so let me.

3.) Your concept of evolution is very narrow and, well, unevolved. Evolution
just deals with how a system responds to it's environment. No restriction will
stop evolution, it will just evolve around whatever change happens. Digg
evolved to blow goats, it's still evolution.

4.) Stop identifying with your ideas so much. Who cares if people downvote
your ideas. Either they are wrong, or you are. You can learn something either
way. Maybe what you learn makes you think the community is wrong, or that you
are wrong, or that you could just write better. It's not a really a judgement
on you.

~~~
kyro
And of course, people should also refrain from saying 'I just baked a pizza'
to a Jew, 'My dad is going to whip my ass' to a black person, and 'I bombed
that test' to a relative of a fallen soldier.

Sure, lynch can be used offensively, but then you'd have to look at it
contextually.

No dictionary returned a result for 'to Holocaust,' either.

~~~
LPTS
I think the word "lynching" cannot casually be used non offensively by a
community of mostly white people.

There is no context where a community of white people casually joking about
lynching isn't going to cause minorities to feel subliminal racism. It's way
different then casually saying you baked a pizza to a jewish person.

~~~
thaumaturgy
| ...by a community of mostly white people.

That is, by definition, a racist sentiment. I know that you won't see it that
way, but it's still worth pointing out anyway.

What a person does or does not take offense to is entirely up to them. I
happen to think that it's reasonable to consider both the context and the
intent of what's said, but some folks just like to get wound up about things.

~~~
LPTS
No. It's a sentiment about demographics that relates to race. If you don't see
a difference between that and being racist, I don't really know what to say to
you.

There are lots and lots of people alive in their 40s and 50s who survived or
had family lynched. There are lots of people in their 20s and 30s who's
childhood (like what side of town they could go to and what girls or boys they
could date) was deeply affected by aftershocks from this.

It's not so much about taking offensive as not triggering something that is
still salient in a lot of people we should want to feel comfortable here.

------
sabat
"The first amendment enforces the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which is disencouraged by
Donwvotes."

While I understand your point, the first amendment applies to Congress making
laws. Not privately run forums.

------
kajecounterhack
I discourage downvotes on articles..the main reason being that digg allows
downvotes on articles and look where its gotten them?

