I think your comment is a good example (and from the votes it looks like I’m not the only one). You’re making a good faith, sensible argument for a position I don’t hold—I think the disagreement karma is a big improvement.
I think your comment deserves an upvote for contributing to the discussion, but I disagree and wanted to indicate that.
I’m really enjoying the irony. But still in the vast majority of cases my regular and agreement votes would go the same way. I downvote comments when I think they cause harm or promote bad ideas (which necessarily means I disagree with them), and strongly downvote them when they promote outright dangerous ideas.
and strongly downvote them when they promote outright dangerous ideas.
This seems like a pretty dishonest action to me fwiw, unless you’re referring to technical information hazards (in which case reporting the comment is also appropriate).
Why dishonest? What do you take a strong downvote to mean? I think I’m really misunderstanding most people here’s notion about the role of upvoted and downvotes.
As examples for both my stated actions, if a user wrote “you’re suggesting something that Trump wanted to do, so I think it’s bad” I’d downvote that comment; If a user wrote “The public doesn’t know what’s good for them, we should eventually find a way to do good without ever having to answer to politicians”, I’d think that’s the kind of arrogance that’s outright dangerous and should be contained, and I’d therefore strongly downvote it.
unless you’re referring to technical information hazards
It’s a separate discussion that I’m planning to write a post about (but probably never will 😅) - but I think EAs widely overestimate the size of the space of infohazards, and almost no comment a sane person could make would ever be one. I further think this is dangerous in itself, as it builds on a wrong belief that we’re better equipped to tackle problems than bad actors are to rediscover them.
So if someone wrote a detailed recipe for a novel pathogen, yeah I’d report them. Anything less than that, not really.
I think your comment is a good example (and from the votes it looks like I’m not the only one). You’re making a good faith, sensible argument for a position I don’t hold—I think the disagreement karma is a big improvement.
I think your comment deserves an upvote for contributing to the discussion, but I disagree and wanted to indicate that.
I’m really enjoying the irony. But still in the vast majority of cases my regular and agreement votes would go the same way. I downvote comments when I think they cause harm or promote bad ideas (which necessarily means I disagree with them), and strongly downvote them when they promote outright dangerous ideas.
I think that’s fine, and you can just do this :) If a feature isn’t useful to you, you don’t have to use it.
This seems like a pretty dishonest action to me fwiw, unless you’re referring to technical information hazards (in which case reporting the comment is also appropriate).
Though perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
Why dishonest? What do you take a strong downvote to mean? I think I’m really misunderstanding most people here’s notion about the role of upvoted and downvotes.
As examples for both my stated actions, if a user wrote “you’re suggesting something that Trump wanted to do, so I think it’s bad” I’d downvote that comment; If a user wrote “The public doesn’t know what’s good for them, we should eventually find a way to do good without ever having to answer to politicians”, I’d think that’s the kind of arrogance that’s outright dangerous and should be contained, and I’d therefore strongly downvote it.
It’s a separate discussion that I’m planning to write a post about (but probably never will 😅) - but I think EAs widely overestimate the size of the space of infohazards, and almost no comment a sane person could make would ever be one. I further think this is dangerous in itself, as it builds on a wrong belief that we’re better equipped to tackle problems than bad actors are to rediscover them.
So if someone wrote a detailed recipe for a novel pathogen, yeah I’d report them. Anything less than that, not really.
I don’t understand your logic at all. How is it contributing from your POV?