But a downvote wouldn't correct that, whereas a comment improves the discouse because it captures the best they can do.

What's left in relief is something closer to truth.

(I don't actually think you're dumb, or that your comment is dumb. I wrote the sibling comment to this one to point out that it's just as easy to degrade discussion with bad comments as with downvotes. I'm sure you can think of many more offensive/asinine comments that you've seen on over the years.)

A downvote says 'I dislike this, and I don't think it's worthy of any more time.' Yes, it's tough on the writer of the comment in that they have to infer the reason something was unpopular, and that inference might not be correct. But that's how it is in the real world. Look at it from the point of view of a busker trying out songs on the sidewalk. Some people stop and listen, some give money, some just express dislike without articulating why, a few are actively hostile.

There's a widespread assumption on HN that any discourse is an improvement on no discourse. It isn't. If I harbor a toxic dislike for you, I can erect a giant billboard saying 'motohagiography is a bad person', and abuse preconceptions about discourse to turn people against you. There are also any number of semantic tactics for doing the same sort of thing, and some people actively weaponize such tactics.

Worth engaging on that point, as I think the crux of the disagreement is about boundaries on rhetoric, and whether downvotes are an appropriate enforcement mechanism for a kind of rhetorical social contract. (pls correct if doesn't capture intent)

A billboard (or search results) with false accusations are a good example, as it exploits others' limited ability to reason about them, sort of like propaganda. It's why there are laws about libel, "fighting words," incitement, false advertising, harassment, perjury, and I'm sure others that fall outside free speech guarantees. They aren't great, or even very good, but they are examples of existing legal boundaries on rhetoric, so the "all/any discourse" already has some limits. Then we've got logical fallacies, and civility etc, so these are checks and balances in a dynamic and narrows the scope away from extreme examples.

Regarding "any discourse" being necessarily better than none, I'd very reluctlantly accept that position, but I would certainly say "most, and almost all discourse" is better than none. All and here? No. Most and here (public)? I'd still err on the side of liberality, even though I'd agree there exist a bunch of common systematic tactics designed to destroy discussions, but public discourse has evolved to handle an increasing number of those tacitcs by recognizing them as trolling.

My position is that discourse is hard, it takes practice, and when it's done well, it is a very refined human art that is an honest signal of thoughtful work. Even the "Dumb." comment in the example, if it were comedically timed or in context it might be brilliant, and is way better than a downvote. When discourse is crappy, it also signals the quality of the thought that goes into it, and I think that's a feature. Nobody is born a great thinker, and the only way we get better and create value we can share with others is by testing our ideas, with opposition. I'm saying downvotes subvert and even pervert that by rewarding spoilers.

That said, I'm oddly in favour of flagging as a tool for things completely out of contextual bounds because that's a request for refereeing, but absolutely against flagging on a global scale.

Regarding the busker, I'm saying that if to get a busking permit in a square you had to have a little box people could hit as they walked by that tallied peoples hostility toward you, is just as absurd on the internet as it sounds in real life.

Pleasure to engage! :)

Dumb