You can see this directly on Reddit, or even here, thanks to the downvote button. It doesn't matter how right you may be, how many sources you may have, if it angers a sufficient people to lead to your post being downvoted, no one will be able to read it.
And though the points are made up, it's always annoying to look at a post you spent half an hour typing and researching just to have it get down to -6 with no further comments.
That's not the issue imo, the issue is how many intelligent comments we miss because someone with insight to add figures it's not worth it and doesn't share it in the first place.
You just gotta know your audience. Everyone has the fantasy of turning hearts and minds to your point of view with your words but eventually you come to the realization it’s just not worth the effort.
I agree, though if there weren't downvotes, I'd probably still make the attempt. But with downvotes, it's just made so abundantly clear that people just don't care, why should I waste my effort so that I can be downvoted into oblivion where no one can read my post?
I have learned not to use reddit for discussion or to express opinions contrary to the American mainstream. It won't get you anywhere as you simply won't be heard. You best find another place to do so - where, I don't know yet. Maybe Aether...
I think the OP argued pretty explicitly that a well researched comment, that violates the orthodoxy, is down-voted until it is removed from public discussion.
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he's "against others expressing their opinions".
The opinion that someone isn't worth listening to and choosing not to amplify their words is an opinion like any other.
The whole cancel culture thing stems from people who believe that they don't just have freedom of speech, but rather the right to force others to listen.
If a community dislikes what you say and chooses to make that content less visible in response, that's perfectly reasonable. You are not being censored, you are being rejected.
Downvoting is an expression of opinion. Opinions aren't owed platforms and never have been. Are all magazines anti-free speech because they don't publish everyone?
And besides, "well-researched" is highly subjective in the best of cases, and in ones like this is usually not accurate in any sense.
For better or worse, the up/downvote buttons are used to express an opinion -- that is the primary purpose.
The problem is that any crowdsourced curation feature uses significant downvotes as a signal for spam or content which otherwise violates the site policies.
Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion.
What all this concern trolling really sounds like isn't an actual defense of values of free speech, but rather sheltering someone from the speech of others.
> Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion.
You seem to be of the opinion that the downvotes are more important than the comment they are downvoting: They are not. They are at best, equivalent, and deserve no more special recognition than the comment itself; yet the fact that a comment gets buried as a result, gives those downvotes a weight greater than that of the subject comment.
Because if that weren't the case, you'd recognize that those downvotes are ALSO apparently entitled to a private platform.
If it's good for one, it is good for both, and it is equivalent to argue that the downvotes aren't entitled to a platform either, and you're left at square one, without a meaningful conclusion.
Maybe, just maybe, that isn't a useful approach to take.
And though the points are made up, it's always annoying to look at a post you spent half an hour typing and researching just to have it get down to -6 with no further comments.