I stated that self censoring is documented and a real threat exists that posts will be fewer and/or of less quality. That I must "prove", while statements like "I don't think it can happen" doesn't need to be backed up by anything but the posters feelings?
So here is a scientific studie that suggest that likes (ie "positives-only") will lead to people limiting themselves. Is someone going to post a scientific study that suggests that like/helpful will maintain or increase post quality, or will all energy be spent on finding flaws in this one?
From the conclusions of the paper:
Decisions to self-censor appeared to be driven by two principles: people censor more when their audience is harder to define, and people censor more when the relevance of the communication “space” is narrower. In other words, while posts directed at vague audiences (e.g., status updates) are censored more, so are posts directed at specifically defined targets (e.g., group posts), because it is easier to doubt the relevance of content directed at these focused audiences.
Regardless of the context in which this scientific study was made, I think it reflects some human principles - if you are unsure of what audience you are talking to or you are unsure if your views "fit in", you will be much more careful with what you say. Or maybe you won't speak at all.
These 2 principles fits perfectly with a positives-only system on FT. The ideas to use the votes for other purposes than immediate feedback, makes the audience fuzzy. When poster understands that the post may appear somewhere else or be used for an alternate purpose, it will make some poster (male posters in general, as suggested by study) more careful and limited in their speech.
And when snarky posts or posts by the clique leader gets all the likes, there is no reason for some posters to post a secondary view of a topic at all.
From the paper:
By that definition, I self-censor my FT posts all the time. I call it using good judgment as to what adds value and what does not. Those authors can call it self-censorship but that does not make it so. They misuse the language.
Jargon aside, I fail to see how adding a positive-only reader feedback could possibly result in a net reduction of high-value posts or a decrease in the average post quality (impossible to quantify, I know, but post quality is nevertheless a real attribute).
I think your comment about "using good judgement" is meant a bit jokingly, but if you truly mean that FT has a widespread problem of people excersing bad judgement and that the like/helpful is the right tool to recify that, then I feel even more worried.
It is those secondary uses of the like/helpful function that you keep hinting about that makes me continue pushing the counter arguments.
I don't think you mean it, but once again you've come off as having a second agenda.