[chiefalchemist]

Giving a down vote costs you 2 (or more?) of your own votes.

As the very least, down votes should require a comment. Even "false", "not true" or "disagree" would help.

My sense is, there's a network of HN users who attempt to manipulate the exposure of ideas by downvoting them (to the point those comments aren't even exposed).

Don't get me wrong, there are comments that deserve DV'ing. Moi? I can't be bothered. I just scroll on. But for those who aspire to be the HN police - especially then it's at the option (not fact) level - they should have to pay for that privilege.

[AnimalMuppet]

> As the very least, down votes should require a comment. Even "false", "not true" or "disagree" would help.

This may be a bad idea. Think about the recursive effect: Someone downvotes, and gives an explanation. Someone downvotes the downvote, and gives an explanation. That's a worse discussion, because it has no more real comments, but all these downvote comments (or worse, comment chains).

[chiefalchemist]

Maybe. But I'll take my chances.

Down voting and not adding context because you simply don't like an idea (which on HN happens more than it should). That is, a very subjective DV.

Is not the same as an objective DV. That is, the statement is false and that should be known.

Again, the current system is too easy to manipulate. See an idea that doesn't fit your (narrow?) sociopolitical lens and you can make it disappear. Not because it's objectively incorrect, but simply because you don't agree with it. That's childish, at best.

[fragmede]

We're explicitly not supposed to say why we've flagged an article, which I find confusing, but is in a similar vein.

[stop50]

I would like this feature.

[beardyw]

Down voted. What a surprise.