How is net any different than people simply not upvoting? Wouldn’t people simply upvote everything else more? Wouldn’t we end up with the same vote rankings just different numbers?
Picture this: you post something that you genuinely enjoy and the second it is posted somebody comes along and downvotes your content because they didn’t like it (not because it didn’t fit the community guidelines). Your content is now in oblivion and you are actively discouraged from posting further in the community. This is what I mean by alienation. It damages diverse opinions in the community.
Is the community better and more democratic that way?
Eliminating downvotes is largely used by highly moderated subreddits (r/conservative for instance). The ones that most accurately fit the definition of echo chambers and who exist to perpetuate an agenda not foster discussion.
I really like this point. I think you bring up an interesting topic about downvotes being a form of expression, and that banning them equates to a loss of freedom.
Engaging every single person is obviously not realistic.
It is not realistic, which is why I am not suggesting that. I would say a better method would be to avoid internet arguments and only engage if you are in a good place to do it constructively. I think niche communities can be the one place where disagreements are not completely futile.
You forgot the most important part: it comes with a cute cat assistant.