An idea for improving the “thumbs” feature

@suzianne said
The ONLY way to add value is to allow people the freedom to disagree. Limiting freedom of expression does the opposite. It doesn't add value, it subtracts value.

Then, seeing as there is also [surely?] a common-sense right to know who one is being accused or criticized by - something missing from Stalinist regimes, I note - then perhaps making thumbs 'not anonymous' would be the correct compromise.

@suzianne said
Limiting freedom of expression adds no value, all it does is limit criticism.

You are not allowed to thumb your own posts up or down so that's a limit on freedom of expression. Limiting the use of the thumbs feature to subscribers seems a reasonable compromise.

@kewpie said
Russ, could we please have an option to turn off the visibility of thumbs added to our preference options?

This is a reasonable idea. Then it can be like a group sticking something on someone's back in the playground and then giggling about it among themselves.

@suzianne said
The ONLY way to add value is to allow people the freedom to disagree.

I don't see how anyone's "freedom to disagree" is affected by limiting the number of red and green thumbs they can give over a period of time.

@suzianne said
But it wasn't being abused. Some people got a majority of alerts because people saw them for what they were... asshats.

It's about time you realize that if you act like an ass, people will respond to you, and if you are just a jerk, you might find their response... unfavorable.

The abusers were the people getting the alerts, for good reason. That's why you insisted t ...[text shortened]... ting the natural response so that you and the rest of the asshats can simply continue being asshats.

you are just a jerk... a butthurt snowflake... the asshats can simply continue being asshats

You have given me Exhibit No.2,329 supporting my view that the thumbs feature is an infantile blight on this otherwise excellent website.

-Removed-

We knew you'd be back.

The answer is still no. No matter how hard and how often you whine.

@suzianne said
This is more gaslighting.

Don't use words whose meaning you don't know.

@fmf said
Then, seeing as there is also [surely?] a common-sense right to know who one is being accused or criticized by - something missing from Stalinist regimes, I note - then perhaps making thumbs 'not anonymous' would be the correct compromise.

So you can commit a pogrom of abuse towards them, as you are wont to do against those who disagree with you publicly?

@shallow-blue said
Don't use words whose meaning you don't know.

The word is entirely the correct word to use.

Limiting one's freedom to disagree doesn't make the signals of disagreement that do get through any more "valuable". It just looks like less people disagree, which is what they want.

Don't condone the abuse that causes most of the red thumbs. They will misrepresent anything in their quest to limit the freedom of those who disagree with them.

@fmf said
you are just a jerk... a butthurt snowflake... the asshats can simply continue being asshats

You have given me Exhibit No.2,329 supporting my view that the thumbs feature is an infantile blight on this otherwise excellent website.

And what does my post have to do with any thumbs you may have received and gotten butthurt about, Mr. Asshat?

@fmf said
I don't see how anyone's "freedom to disagree" is affected by limiting the number of red and green thumbs they can give over a period of time.

"I don't see how limiting someone's freedom to disagree limits their freedom to disagree."

FMF-translate module no. 145.

-Removed-

Again, the feature is NOT being abused. It is "working as intended".