By advantage I mean posts from those instances receiving more visibility than others on feeds that sort by score (active, hot, top).

There seems to be at least two ways in which posts from instances that don’t allow downvotes receive an advantage:

  • They don’t federate downvotes. That means other instances only count downvotes from their own users but not from the rest of the fediverse.
  • A downvote sometimes can be counted and federated as an upvote. This happens when you first upvote a post and then change it to a downvote.

Let’s see an example. Suppose we are a user from instance A that allows downvotes and we want to vote a post on instance B that doesn’t allow downvotes. Watch what happens on instance C that also allows downvotes.

  1. Before the vote this is what users from each instance see (upvote - downvote = total score)
    A: 10 - 0 = 10
    B: 10 - 0 = 10
    C: 10 - 0 = 10

  2. Now we upvote the post:
    A: 11 - 0 = 11
    B: 11 - 0 = 11
    C: 11 - 0 = 11

  3. We misclicked, we meant to downvote the post:
    A: 10 - 1 = 9
    B: 11 - 0 = 11
    C: 11 - 0 = 11

If the post was hosted on an instance that allowed downvotes users from instance C would see a total score of 9.

  • Boinketh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It seems odd to me that we would federate with instances lacking such basic functionality. Not allowing their users to downvote is one thing, but if they don’t recognize downvotes from other instances, that sort of ruins the whole upvote/downvote dynamic for everyone.

    • LedgeDrop@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was on Beehaw and they block downvotes. I didn’t think much of it until I went to a federated channel with low participation (it was a new channel) and I wanted to downvote some bot-spam… but couldn’t cause Beehaw didn’t allow it.

      I understand (but don’t agree with) the site operators intention, but their rational breaks down if you view the fediverse as something more than the single instance you’re registered with.

      Fortunately, it’s easy to “vote with your feet”.

      • ruckblack@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Beehaw seems to want to only be beehaw lol. I’m honestly not sure why they’re even using lemmy to host their community.

      • Boinketh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I understand the rules correctly, the problem is that voting with your feet doesn’t work because trolls can use no-downvote instances to do some major trolling.

        • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it becomes a big enough problem, other instances can de-federate with problematic instances. I don’t like de-federation, but I also don’t like disabling downvotes.

      • shotgun_crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wait, so disallowing downvotes means you can’t downvote posts from any federated instance or did I get it wrong? That’s kinda weird…

        • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Users who can’t handle downvotes on their own instance clearly can’t be trusted with downvotes elsewhere.

      • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        their rational breaks down if you view the fediverse as something more than the single instance you’re registered with.

        How so?

        • LedgeDrop@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well Beehaw’s rational is explained in this thread.

          The reason I wanted to downvote was because Reddit communities like GameDeals is one of the new equalization I cannot easily find on Lemmy.

          Thus, I found [email protected] / https://lemmit.online/c/gamedeals. It uses a bot to scrape the content from Reddit, but the scoring and popularity is missing.

          When I joined there were only 13 people subscribed (now it’s 150+). If I’m limited to upvotes, it was difficult to “vote for the threads I liked” vs “vote for the shovelware” that appears in that channel.

          With downvote, I was able to downvote shovelware and upvote threads I thought others would be interested. Everything else would be left as neutral.

          • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t really see how those two issues relate to each other though? You said beehaw’s rationalisation breaks down once you consider federation, but the problem you’re describing doesn’t really relate to federation. It also doesn’t really seem like much of a problem to me either to be honest. Yeah, it changes the dynamics of a group, but the good stuff will still get more upvotes than the crap. It’s not quite as granular as you would like, but it doesn’t fundamentally break the group or anything.

            • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anyone on any other instance could reply with the word “downvote” and it would have the same effect. Users on the same instance could do that too, but typically people who join such instances agree with its sentiment.