Ask Lemmy

Ok, but I think you're conflating two separate things; the usefulness of Reddit as a content index (which I agree is still unmatched) with whether the upvote/downvote mechanic is net positive. One doesn't need to quit Reddit to acknowledge that the voting system consistently produces pathological outcomes at scale. "Brigading" is a literal Reddit phenomena

The Usenet comparison wasn't really about scale. It was about the incentive structure. Upvotes/downvotes don't just surface good content, they gamify participation in a way that systematically advantages emotionally resonant, tribally safe content over nuanced or contrarian takes. That's not a flaw in implementation , it's a feature of the design.

And "people react to your statements in real life" isn't really analogous. In real life, social feedback is contextual, bidirectional, and has friction. A downvote is anonymous, effortless, and carries zero accountability. The asymmetry matters.

The link is to a book (available via Libby if you don't want to pay for it) in case you wanted a primary source. In summary: Desforges' core argument is that Reddit exploits operant conditioning to keep users chasing high-value posts through a flood of mediocre ones and that even people who claim not to care about karma are still shaped by it. It's worth a read.

Justin Rosenstein - one of the engineers who actually built Facebook's Like button - has publicly said it produces what he called "bright dings of pseudo-pleasure," and has since restricted his own use of it. Leah Pearlman, who co-created it with him, has said the same. These aren't outside critics; these are the people who built the thing.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/years-on-creators-of-facebook-like-button-give-idea-thumbs-down/

End of the day: if you find it personally useful, I believe you. I think the problem is in aggregate behaviour. Apes together...dumb.