you're supposed to downvote things you disagree with on HN. Here's Dang pointing to PG saying that downvoting for disagreeing is what you're supposed to do

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

I think it's healthy for the website that many people reserve downvotes for stuff that really 'deserves' it. But good to remember the mods position so you don't go around moaning about rule breaking voting. And how could you police that anyway?

"It's ok to do that" != "you are supposed to do that", and behavior of people varies accordingly.

I sometimes upvote replies to my own comments that I disagree with, because I think they make a good or interesting point (even if I disagree). Am I doing it wrong?

This sounds completely wrong to me...

Agree. Downvoting disagreeable people will eventually completely silence them with that logic. One has to be generally agreeable to maintain positive karma. Not sure if the side effect is worth it. There are a lot of amusing assholes out there with unpopular opinions. Opinions that are highly relevant to the topic at hand can be polarizing, but these will likely result in the poster having negative karma long term. pg and dang are simply wrong. It encourages a hive mind.

That isn't true, I am very disagreeable and argumentative and post before I think, and still maintain positive karma without any issues.

Edit: It works since to downvote you need 500 karma, but everyone can upvote, so getting many upvotes is a lot easier than getting many downvotes.

> That isn't true, I am very disagreeable and argumentative and post before I think, and still maintain positive karma without any issues.

Oh, I see. You personally haven't been downvoted into oblivion and/or had the door slammed in your face, so everything is cool then. 100% of the people who were censored must have been terrible people. Heil Dang, etc.

But, do they carry equal weight ?