The admins have a comment about that here, copied below:
vote brigading is one part of it, but another influence of this decision comes from Tildes, where the emphasis is on quality of discussion and the site accordingly has feedback mechanisms to reflect this–most prominently in lacking a downvote button. (although i should also note we’re going for a more laid-back attitude than Tildes has.) while i’m sure there’s a theoretical way to minimize their impact while maintaining their function, downvotes can easily be used to artificially sway opinion, punish unpopular opinions, etc, and their utility is actually somewhat minimal as a website feature and community control mechanism.
the going theory in removing them therefore is that to express disagreement, you’ll have to at least put some thought into why you disagree with a post, and ideally that will be expressed in the form of a comment which can be used as a further jumping off point for conversation and dialogue. (alternatively, i guess, you could also just accept a disagreement as not necessarily worth your or another person’s time, and move on.)
This can also go the same way for upvotes. If you have to put some thought into a disagreement you should do the same for agreement. So upvotes should be removed too so the platform just operates on voiced agreement or disagreement in the comments.
There is a still a need to surface and prioritize good discussion. Upvotes remain a pretty good way of doing this, especially when removing the downvotes.
Why not surface communities based on activity. As in how active the comments section is. That way agreements and disagreements are weighed equally.
I'd be interested in seeing that experiment in the comment section. It could be implemented with another filter (similar to the "Activity" filter in the post listing, I'd guess). Still, this wouldn't present a qualitative difference between "good" and "bad" discussion. But it might surface "interesting" discussion for a certain type of member.
i feel like this incentivises 'controversial' posting. content that is designed to illicit a response, good or bad. i feel like this is another avenue to creating an inflammatory space.
This can also go the same way for upvotes. If you have to put some thought into a disagreement you should do the same for agreement. So upvotes should be removed too so the platform just operates on voiced agreement or disagreement in the comments.
well, even if we wanted to do this we couldn't--it's not toggleable on our end. but if you want to get a simulacrum of this experience i believe that's essentially what turning off scores does, which you can do in your user settings.
The admins have a comment about that here, copied below:
This can also go the same way for upvotes. If you have to put some thought into a disagreement you should do the same for agreement. So upvotes should be removed too so the platform just operates on voiced agreement or disagreement in the comments.
There is a still a need to surface and prioritize good discussion. Upvotes remain a pretty good way of doing this, especially when removing the downvotes.
Why not surface communities based on activity. As in how active the comments section is. That way agreements and disagreements are weighed equally.
I'd be interested in seeing that experiment in the comment section. It could be implemented with another filter (similar to the "Activity" filter in the post listing, I'd guess). Still, this wouldn't present a qualitative difference between "good" and "bad" discussion. But it might surface "interesting" discussion for a certain type of member.
i feel like this incentivises 'controversial' posting. content that is designed to illicit a response, good or bad. i feel like this is another avenue to creating an inflammatory space.
well, even if we wanted to do this we couldn't--it's not toggleable on our end. but if you want to get a simulacrum of this experience i believe that's essentially what turning off scores does, which you can do in your user settings.