I hate that I always compare Lemmy to Reddit, but Reddit used to have (not sure if they still do) guidelines called “Reddiquette” that included guidelines about upvoting and downvoting. I don’t remember the specifics (and sending too much of my browser traffic to Reddit makes me feel dirty) but one of the guidelines was not to upvote/downvote on the basis of agreement/disagreement with the content.
On Lemmy, I’m honestly a bit lax about upvoting and downvoting at all. (I’m trying to be better about it.) Buy when I do upvote/downvote, I try to do so on the basis of whether the comment/post “adds to” or “subtracts from” the community or conversation. I can disagree with one comment’s take on some subject but still upvote them if they’ve given me a more nuanced perspective on the issue. If they’re just parrotting well-known talking points and not being thoughtful with their posts, I may downvote them evren if I agree with their ultimate stance.
I’m just mostly wondering how folks on Lemmy think about upvotes/downvotes and what implications that has for the content here.
Upvote for funny posts, posts that contribute to the discussion even if they drift a bit off topic, and anything that promotes positivity.
No upvotes/downvites for things I disagree with that are just differences in opinions, or something that is trying to be funny but doesn’t work for me. Also posts I just don’t understand or understand the context.
Downvotes for people being jerks, posting misinformation, promoting terrible stuff like fascism, racism, sexism, etc. It does mean I mostly downvote anything positive about US conservatives, but that is because they tend to promote those things I mentioned already.
I sometimes also downvote people who go overboard with generally positive things by assuming anything other than agreeing with their narrow view is automatically malicious. Some of us are trying and admitting we aren’t perfect or that maybe there is more than one way to be supportive than the one they think the only way.