Lemmy implements a scoring system allowing people to upvote or downvote posts. You know that since you are using Lemmy :)
Score can be used to increase or lower visibility of posts, in particular when using some sorting algorithms (active, hot, top).
This can be used to increase the visibility of good quality posts, and lower that of low quality or irrelevant posts.
Yet, from what I observe, the tool is mostly used for communities to self-administer filter bubble. Some communities seem to behave like a hive mind, massively upvoting or downvoting until either the dissident is assimilated in a very Borg way, or excommunicated.
Also, scores seem to be used often to convey cheap moral judgement, without having the need to expose oneself to criticism by providing arguments to sustain their opinion.
Overall, I think scores are more toxic than useful, and I would be in favor of hiding them by default, so that new comers are not put out by them.
What is your opinion about this? What are the advantages of having the score visible by default?
Just a clarification: the question is not “should scores exist or not?”. If people find value in scores, good for them. I’m not one to dictate other people preferences. :)
sure, this would work with Lemmy since that aren’t that many posts, so even if there’s something low quality it doesn’t override the amount of good content
but how would posts filtering work when a community or even Lemmy itself becomes big enough so that there’s more low quality posts then those that would normally stand out more?
I would personally hate it, since it would be hard to see actual good and interesting posts I’d actually like seeing.
just sort any big subreddit by new and you see it’s difficult too find any interesting content right away
maybe the solution would be highlight posts with more comments? though it would work, it would obfuscate interesting posts that don’t need or get as many discussion in the content and it would highlight controversial posts