No I didn’t know that, would be interesting to see more of them try it, just for curiositys sake.

It makes me wonder—would the dynamic change if there was only an upvote? So you could choose not to upvote, but the default action would be a neutral one, and if you liked/wanted to support/etc you could signal that.

I see tons of posts on here now that are downvoted to oblivion, because they are a legitimate article that says something a group doesn’t like. There won’t even be comments on the post. So like a Reuter article that discusses Palestinian casualties and no comments and like -20. This doesn’t seem like a super useful mechanism. Or at least, it’s just functioning today as a content preference “I don’t want to see this typed content” as opposed to “this is bad info, out of line with the community, etc.”

And despite ranking my list by either hot, or top day/six hours, I still see the downvoted posts regularly so the mechanic doesn’t even really do anything in terms of visibility. Or possibly there’s just too little content on a given community for it to get filtered out.

Gotcha so the idea is they’re just gonna give it a shot and try to eat you, regardless, because the stakes, they are high?

To be fair, in a moral sense, they should absolutely try and eat every human they can get their claws on; we have done a bang up job on making their habitat and food sources disappear.

So are polar bears considered more dangerous and aggro than grizzlies? I mean it wouldn’t be too crazy, particularly since it’s probably rare to encounter one, compare to grizzlies. But just had never really heard that.

Go all in on milking generational divide and do like a Taylor Swift / Kendrick Lamar ticket. I definitely think either of them could do a better job at being president than our current batch of options.