user13375: In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this:

To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is
extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh
speech.

Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means...
Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?

user19480: I doubt we’ll find a sutra reference that speaks about downvoting answers, so I’ll just relate a personal experience here. Early on, there was a person that downvoted seemingly every one of my answers for a period of time, and I found that very divisive, especially because his comments were not helpful, other than to let me know that it was he that was doing it. That kind of downvoting, in my opinion, does not conform to right speech. But this was contextual. If an answer misrepresents Buddhism in general, or is based on something else entirely, then downvoting that probably does at least conform to defending the Dharma, if not also being right speech.

user8157: 
Of these four persons, Potaliya, he who speaks both in dispraise of
what deserves dispraise seasonably saying what is a fact and true and
in praise of what is praiseworthy, saying seasonably what is a fact
and true - he is the most admirable and rare.
AN 4.100


user254: It's a well-known or frequently-expressed feeling on other SE sites -- a downvote feels like an insult, and a downvote without a comment seems rude and unhelpful.
Even so, in spite of the fact that users may not like it, SE allows it -- people can downvote, and aren't required to comment.
I recommend you comment -- if you can be friendly, and with a comment maybe phrased as a question or as constructive criticism suggestion -- especially with a new user, who might be sensitive to the community's reaction to their post.
I might also recommend that you don't comment in any of the following scenarios (if a comment is no better than or worse than no comment):

If the comment isn't informative, for example:

I"m downvoting this answer because of your view about X, which is wrong I tell you.


If it's not new information:

As I've told you 50 times already, I disagree with your view about X


If experience tells you that commenting on this particular person's answer usually leads to more arguments and "division" than not commenting


I agree it may be perceived as harsh.
As for whether it breaks a precept, is immoral, I think that depends.
Canonically the Buddha would have "a sense of the proper time" for saying "things that are factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others" -- which most people don't necessarily.
But the Buddha might also sometimes not correct -- or stop correcting -- mistakes:

Was the Buddha harsh?
Why does the Buddha, in the Pali Canon, periodically engage in harsh speech?


user17553: I personally avoid downvoting and harsh comments unless it is extremely necessary because it hurts the sentiments of poster and vilifies the atmosphere.
Buddha criticised many times but it was out of compassion. Those who try to be emotionless while judging have wrongly interpreted the teachings. The point is to be as considerate as possible while judging a human being... there is no substitute for a sincere compassion.

user471: The purpose of upvoting and downvoting answers on this site is to give the community the chance to determine the quality of the answers.
So, the better the answer (in terms of being on-topic, correct, accurate, answers the question and supported by elaboration and references), the more upvotes it should get.
On the other hand, an answer which is on-topic and allowed (not spam, rude etc.), but is wrong or inaccurate, should get downvotes. In fact, I think it is beneficial to downvote wrong answers, so that readers are able to identify it as a negative example i.e. an example of wrong understanding.
Is it incorrect speech to downvote?
According to MN 58:


In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
sympathy for living beings."



I would say the third case above is the case for downvoting.
Downvoting an answer may be unendearing and disagreeable to the person answering.
If users can judge whether the correctness of an answer is factual and true, and if declaring this is beneficial for the answerer and other readers, then upvoting or downvoting is the proper time to express this, according to the way this site works. This is correct speech.
It's only incorrect speech if you know an answer to be correct, yet downvote it, or vice versa.

user43: Divisive speech is speech that sets people up against each other. Divisive speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering.
A typical example of divisive speech is telling one person or group of people something negative about another person or group of people, usually in private. This gives one side a reason to generate aversion towards the other side.
Harsh speech is rude or offensive speech usually directed at its object. For example when you disagree with a person's understanding of Buddhism you tell him or her that he or she is an idiot, completely confused about right Dharma etc.
Harsh speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering by giving the other person a reason to generate aversion towards you and your opinions. This is especially dangerous and harmful if your opinions are actually right and beneficial, because it creates a reason for the other person to hate what's right and beneficial!
In both cases Buddha made exception for the senior bhikkhus to censor and reprimand the novice bhikkhus. He compared it with a surgeon causing temporary pain to a patient for the sake of long-term benefit. He also said, not speaking up when someone is wrong according to Dharma is by itself a problem, because it enables the wrong behavior or understanding to endure.
Finally, Buddha said that when saying things that are beneficial but unpleasant to others we must have a good sense of timing and tact, to say it in the most acceptable and the least harmful way.
From all the above we can understand that negative feedback is acceptable and even encouraged in Buddhism, provided it's done properly to make sure it lands well.
I don't think downvoting can qualify as divisive speech, because we are not (privately) setting up people against each other. Someone may say that it creates the reasons for other people to dislike the downvoted answer, but that would only be true if the answer could not be upvoted by someone else who finds it right and beneficial. At the end, it's the cumulative effect of multiple votes that matters, not a single up or down vote.
As to whether downvoting qualifies as harsh speech creating a reason for the author to dislike the downvoter, I think this would be true if the votes were not anonymous. However the way it is done on this site, no one can see who has voted something up or down so unless you tell the person you did it, their frustration does not have a specific object. This way it serves as a signal that their answer was not 100% acceptable by all readers which by itself is useful feedback IMO.
Then again, I think this falls into the territory of "the right timing and a sense of tact". Sometimes a gentle comment is more appropriate and sometimes a downvote or even a moderators flag is the right way to go.
Just my 2 cents.

13375: <p>In a comment to an answer on this site I saw this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To the folks who insist on downvoting, please note that downvoting is
extremely unhelpful and actually qualifies as divisive and harsh
speech.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Do others agree? Does downvoting an answer necessarily qualify as divisive and harsh speech? I've thought of it as a form of feedback. Of course, if it is possible to elaborate and provide more constructive feedback then by all means...</p>
<p>Does downvoting violate the precept on correct speech?</p>
 19480: <p>I doubt we’ll find a sutra reference that speaks about downvoting answers, so I’ll just relate a personal experience here. Early on, there was a person that downvoted seemingly every one of my answers for a period of time, and I found that very divisive, especially because his comments were not helpful, other than to let me know that it was he that was doing it. That kind of downvoting, in my opinion, does not conform to right speech. But this was contextual. If an answer misrepresents Buddhism in general, or is based on something else entirely, then downvoting that probably does at least conform to defending the Dharma, if not also being right speech.</p>
 8157: <blockquote>
<p>Of these four persons, Potaliya, he who speaks both in dispraise of
what deserves dispraise seasonably saying what is a fact and true and
in praise of what is praiseworthy, saying seasonably what is a fact
and true - he is the most admirable and rare.</p>
<p><a href="http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.100.wood.pts.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.100</a></p>
</blockquote>
 254: <p>It's a well-known or frequently-expressed feeling on other SE sites -- a downvote feels like an insult, and a downvote without a comment seems rude <em>and</em> unhelpful.</p>
<p>Even so, in spite of the fact that users may not like it, SE allows it -- people can downvote, and aren't required to comment.</p>
<p>I recommend you comment -- if you can be friendly, and with a comment maybe phrased as a question or as constructive <strike>criticism</strike> suggestion -- especially with a new user, who might be sensitive to the community's reaction to their post.</p>
<p>I might also recommend that you don't comment in any of the following scenarios (if a comment is no better than or worse than no comment):</p>
<ul>
<li><p>If the comment isn't informative, for example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I&quot;m downvoting this answer because of your view about X, which is wrong I tell you.</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p>If it's not new information:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As I've told you 50 times already, I disagree with your view about X</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
<li><p>If experience tells you that commenting on <em>this particular</em> person's answer usually leads to more arguments and &quot;division&quot; than not commenting</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>I agree it may be perceived as harsh.</p>
<p>As for whether it breaks a precept, is immoral, I think that depends.</p>
<p>Canonically the Buddha would have &quot;a sense of the proper time&quot; for saying &quot;things that are factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing &amp; disagreeable to others&quot; -- which most people don't necessarily.</p>
<p>But the Buddha might also sometimes not correct -- or stop correcting -- mistakes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8804/254">Was the Buddha harsh?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/26679/254">Why does the Buddha, in the Pali Canon, periodically engage in harsh speech?</a></li>
</ul>
 17553: <p>I personally avoid downvoting and harsh comments unless it is extremely necessary because it hurts the sentiments of poster and vilifies the atmosphere.
Buddha criticised many times but it was out of compassion. Those who try to be emotionless while judging have wrongly interpreted the teachings. The point is to be as considerate as possible while judging a human being... there is no substitute for a sincere compassion.</p>
 471: <p>The purpose of upvoting and downvoting answers on this site is to give the community the chance to determine the quality of the answers.</p>
<p>So, the better the answer (in terms of being on-topic, correct, accurate, answers the question and supported by elaboration and references), the more upvotes it should get.</p>
<p>On the other hand, an answer which is on-topic and allowed (not spam, rude etc.), but is wrong or inaccurate, should get downvotes. In fact, I think it is beneficial to downvote wrong answers, so that readers are able to identify it as a negative example i.e. an example of wrong understanding.</p>
<p>Is it incorrect speech to downvote?</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 58</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li><p>In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &amp;
disagreeable to others, he does not say them.</p>
</li>
<li><p>In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing &amp; disagreeable to others, he does not say
them.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing &amp; disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them.</strong></p>
</li>
<li><p>In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing &amp; agreeable to others, he does not
say them.</p>
</li>
<li><p>In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing &amp; agreeable to others, he does not say
them.</p>
</li>
<li><p>In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing &amp; agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
sympathy for living beings.&quot;</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>I would say the third case above is the case for downvoting.</p>
<p>Downvoting an answer may be unendearing and disagreeable to the person answering.</p>
<p>If users can judge whether the correctness of an answer is factual and true, and if declaring this is beneficial for the answerer and other readers, then upvoting or downvoting is the proper time to express this, according to the way this site works. This is correct speech.</p>
<p>It's only incorrect speech if you know an answer to be correct, yet downvote it, or vice versa.</p>
 43: <p>Divisive speech is speech that sets people up against each other. Divisive speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering.</p>
<p>A typical example of divisive speech is telling one person or group of people something negative about another person or group of people, usually in private. This gives one side a reason to generate aversion towards the other side.</p>
<p>Harsh speech is rude or offensive speech usually directed at its object. For example when you disagree with a person's understanding of Buddhism you tell him or her that he or she is an idiot, completely confused about right Dharma etc.</p>
<p>Harsh speech sows the seeds of conflict and suffering by giving the other person a reason to generate aversion towards you and your opinions. This is especially dangerous and harmful if your opinions are actually right and beneficial, because it creates a reason for the other person to hate what's right and beneficial!</p>
<p>In both cases Buddha made exception for the senior bhikkhus to censor and reprimand the novice bhikkhus. He compared it with a surgeon causing temporary pain to a patient for the sake of long-term benefit. He also said, not speaking up when someone is wrong according to Dharma is by itself a problem, because it enables the wrong behavior or understanding to endure.</p>
<p>Finally, Buddha said that when saying things that are beneficial but unpleasant to others we must have a good sense of timing and tact, to say it in the most acceptable and the least harmful way.</p>
<p>From all the above we can understand that negative feedback is acceptable and even encouraged in Buddhism, provided it's done properly to make sure it lands well.</p>
<p>I don't think downvoting can qualify as divisive speech, because we are not (privately) setting up people against each other. Someone may say that it creates the reasons for other people to dislike the downvoted answer, but that would only be true if the answer could not be upvoted by someone else who finds it right and beneficial. At the end, it's the cumulative effect of multiple votes that matters, not a single up or down vote.</p>
<p>As to whether downvoting qualifies as harsh speech creating a reason for the author to dislike the downvoter, I think this would be true if the votes were not anonymous. However the way it is done on this site, no one can see who has voted something up or down so unless you tell the person you did it, their frustration does not have a specific object. This way it serves as a signal that their answer was not 100% acceptable by all readers which by itself is useful feedback IMO.</p>
<p>Then again, I think this falls into the territory of &quot;the right timing and a sense of tact&quot;. Sometimes a gentle comment is more appropriate and sometimes a downvote or even a moderators flag is the right way to go.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>
