I have been active on different SO/SE forums for quite a while.
The sites here aren't forums, they're tightly curated Q/A resources, more akin to Wikipedia than a social network.
However, I have barely seen the same behavior from other SO users. Consider this post for example. There I have asked a question about compiling software on FreeDOS and I didn't ask it on SuperUser because I speculated (wrongly) it will include some programing.
The question was closed, and the close message gives a very useful pointer for you, namely:
"Questions about general computing hardware and software are off-topic for Stack Overflow unless they directly involve tools used primarily for programming. You may be able to get help on Super User."
Which tells you quite a bit about what went wrong with your post. Downvotes don't come with explicit messages, and this has been brought up and declined more then a hundred times already (no, really), but they do have a description on the privilege page and the arrow:
This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful
From which you can extrapolate quite a bit.
As soon as I wrote this I experienced a tsunami of downvotes and flags on my posts and former posts! someone even took the liberty to edit my post and remove this criticize. So here are the points I want to discuss:
That's regrettable but also understandable. In your message you basically accuse people who donate their free time and expertise to keep stack overflow clean of refuse and off topic questions of being toxic. Being that this is tagged with psychology, one of the universals of human psychology is that people dislike being accused of things they find reprehensible but haven't done. It''s therefore unsurprising that editing such a paragraph into the question would draw negative attention.
what exactly happens in the mind of a person causing him/her to downvote others without giving them the chance to learn why? and why when this behavior is criticized they tend to do it even worse? Has there ever been a psychological study on people's behavior on social media and how they try to punish/silence others?
When you curate posts on Stack Overflow, you see a lot of bad posts. Like, 90% of what you see in the close votes or new posts queue is bad or off topic. The strain of explaining the same thing to 1.000 people making the same mistake day after day makes people curt in their responses. The SE system has mitigated this by reducing human interaction: close reasons are largely canned, and commenting about your downvotes is discouraged.
I disagree that this has anything to do with silencing or punishing others, that is your interpretation into it from not knowing exactly how it works. This here site is not a social media platform or forum, it is a (supposed to be) tightly curated Q/A resource. You wouldn't accuse people of silencing others on wikipedia because your contribution to an article got rejected, for instance. It's in the same vein here.
Regarding for why making wild accusations draws additional negative attention, see above.
Why SO/SE still has the feature of anonymous downvote without explanation. When there is a flag option what is the benefit of having downvote at all?
This topic has been discussed, the idea rejected, and the topic discussed hundreds of times on Stack Overflow and on here. So much so, there's a FAQ dedicated to listing the arguments. You'll note that FAQ has 60 undeleted linked questions alone.
why there is no option to move questions across these SO/SE forums if being "on-topic" is so important?
There is, in limited circumstances, it's called migration. It's not often used, because usually questions have to be reworded / reworked significantly anyways to fit on the scope of another SE site, and usually these questions are poor to start.
Answer from Magisch on Stack Exchange