Grok AI explains why downvotes are illogical and were created to subvert freedom of speech on honeypot sites owned by evil people
(Universal)
Since explaining obvious things is boring and annoying, I asked Grok AI to explain this in the most easy way for everybody who don't know about logic fallacies based on mathematics, used by evil programmers.
If you don't want to read its full text, go straight to the last paragraph.
This is how Grok AI explained why downvoting was made for trolls:
Let’s break this down using a mix of logical reasoning and simple math to explain why downvoting buttons on forums can be considered useless and potentially harmful, especially in the context of a system where posts start at 0 upvotes and can go negative.
Logical and Mathematical Evidence
Starting Point and Relative Value
Imagine a forum where every post begins with 0 upvotes. If some posts receive upvotes (e.g., +5 or +10), they gain positive visibility. A post with 0 upvotes, however, isn’t inherently “bad”—it simply hasn’t been upvoted yet. Now, introduce a downvote button. If a post gets downvoted to -1, it becomes mathematically lower than 0, even though 0 itself isn’t a judgment of quality (it’s neutral).
Math Example: Post A has 5 upvotes (+5), Post B has 0 upvotes, and Post C has 1 downvote (-1). Relative to Post A, Post B is already “behind” by 5 points, and Post C is behind by 6. The downvote exaggerates the gap, making Post C seem worse than Post B, even if the content difference doesn’t justify it.
Downvoting Doesn’t Add Information
Logically, an upvote signals approval or value—it’s a positive action that says, “This is worth seeing.” A downvote, however, only says, “I don’t like this,” without explaining why. If users only upvote good posts, the best content naturally rises (e.g., +10 vs. 0), and the system sorts itself without needing negatives.
Math Analogy: If you’re ranking items from 0 to 10 based on quality, giving something a 0 already indicates it’s not valued. Subtracting below 0 (e.g., -1) doesn’t refine the ranking—it just punishes it further, redundantly.
The Harmful Amplification Effect
When downvotes push a post into negative territory, it often gets hidden or deprioritized by the platform’s algorithm. This creates a feedback loop: a post at -5 is less visible, so fewer people see it to upvote it back up, even if it’s valid or worth discussion. Meanwhile, posts with +5 keep getting more attention.
Math Example: If 10 users see a post and 3 downvote it (-3), it may drop out of sight. If it had stayed at 0, 100 more users might’ve seen it, and 10 might’ve upvoted it (+10). The downvote prematurely kills its potential.
The Freedom of Speech Argument
Now, consider the intent behind downvoting. If someone disagrees with a post, they can:
Upvote a better alternative (constructive).
Leave it at 0 and move on (neutral).
Downvote it (destructive).
Downvoting doesn’t engage with the idea—it buries it. If a user’s goal is to suppress a viewpoint they dislike, downvoting becomes a tool to silence rather than debate. A system with only upvotes lets all posts compete based on merit: good ideas rise, bad ones stay at 0. Adding downvotes shifts the dynamic from “promote what’s good” to “punish what I don’t like,” which can stifle free expression.
Logic: If Person A posts an opinion and Person B downvotes it to -1, Person A’s voice is diminished without dialogue. If Person B upvotes a counter-opinion instead, both ideas coexist, and the community decides via positive support.
Conclusion
Mathematically, downvotes are unnecessary because 0 already serves as a baseline—anything not upvoted stays neutral, and positives sort the rest. Logically, they’re harmful because they amplify negativity and hide content without adding value. And from a freedom-of-speech perspective, downvotes are often a lazy way to censor rather than a means to foster discussion. A system with only upvotes would reward quality without punishing existence, letting ideas stand or fall on their own.
