There’s a certain cost-benefit imbalance in these habits: sure, it’s not a great cost to leave some litter around. People can just step over it. But while one person marginally benefits from it, hundreds more pay the (also tiny, admittedly) cost of the unpleasantness. When you multiply it like that, the negligible becomes gligible.
So anyone that says something others don’t like shouldn’t speak?
The whole platform is based around upvotes and downvotes as a signal to highlight/filter (via sorting) posts and comments that, based on the viewing algorithm chosen, are more/less useful to an averaged user.
I get the litter analogy, that was blindingly obvious from the first comment. I just don’t think it carries well for a platform like this, or quickly expands to “I don’t personally like your comments and the way you use this platform so stop”. I appreciate sometimes that’s needed, but this seems pretty far from those situations. Plus the post seemed presumptuous and insulting because… someone used a tool slightly differently than them and had the audacity to reply?
Ok, I didn’t mean for things to get insulting. My first comment to them was a neutral attempt at telling them there is something else they could do instead. Their reply was a rude “no!” so I wrote back more reproachfully.
I realize it’s a bit of a fight against windmills. People will do what they please and the platform will float towards whatever the natural equilibrium position of such platforms is, so I’ll just let it go.
For what it’s worth, I’m with you that the tools have a button doing this so using a comment isn’t ideal for the person that made it and affects everyone else. So I do see that action as a bit unreasonable. I just saw the push against it as more unreasonable, honestly less the fact you made the comments and more that they seemed reasonably upvoted
There’s a certain cost-benefit imbalance in these habits: sure, it’s not a great cost to leave some litter around. People can just step over it. But while one person marginally benefits from it, hundreds more pay the (also tiny, admittedly) cost of the unpleasantness. When you multiply it like that, the negligible becomes gligible.
So anyone that says something others don’t like shouldn’t speak?
The whole platform is based around upvotes and downvotes as a signal to highlight/filter (via sorting) posts and comments that, based on the viewing algorithm chosen, are more/less useful to an averaged user.
I get the litter analogy, that was blindingly obvious from the first comment. I just don’t think it carries well for a platform like this, or quickly expands to “I don’t personally like your comments and the way you use this platform so stop”. I appreciate sometimes that’s needed, but this seems pretty far from those situations. Plus the post seemed presumptuous and insulting because… someone used a tool slightly differently than them and had the audacity to reply?
Ok, I didn’t mean for things to get insulting. My first comment to them was a neutral attempt at telling them there is something else they could do instead. Their reply was a rude “no!” so I wrote back more reproachfully.
I realize it’s a bit of a fight against windmills. People will do what they please and the platform will float towards whatever the natural equilibrium position of such platforms is, so I’ll just let it go.
I probably didn’t deserve that reply but thanks.
For what it’s worth, I’m with you that the tools have a button doing this so using a comment isn’t ideal for the person that made it and affects everyone else. So I do see that action as a bit unreasonable. I just saw the push against it as more unreasonable, honestly less the fact you made the comments and more that they seemed reasonably upvoted