Lemmy

Downvoting is curation, pulling out weeds out to create space for better plants to grow, taking out the trash, helping others avoid bad things. Downvoting is care. Downvoting is love.

While I dislike the way many people downvote in discussions, I don't think anonymity is necessarily the problem.

I believe the downvote currently conflates uses that it shouldn't, which is both a design flaw and a culture issue. Changing culture is difficult, but software can influence and shape it as the medium through which we interact. To improve things, it may be better to experiment with and iterate on these core features, not just expose everyone's actions. Transparency doesn't inherently a positive system make.

Admittedly, this is experimentation that Lemmy might be uninterested in, or outright incapable of.

Votes should be public so you think twice before downvoting something.

This kinda gives off the feeling of cracking down on people with some form of punishment for daring to be honest. I don't think that's a good mindset to be considering this topic in.

If there is no explicit rule that downvotes are not for agreement, (and there's pretty universal usage of downvotes in that fashion), then there should never be consequences for using the tool provided. Public and popularized tracking of downvotes will result in consequences. (Bans, harassment)

It would be better for instances to remove downvotes entirely, if they believe downvoting is something to be policed.

Increasing pressure on users to follow rules that are not on the sidebar, and not baked into the tool fundamentally (as in making downvotes unavailable) will only lead to user distaste and reduce engagement.

Users must be able to transparently understand the rules they are subject to