4 ms·

It's an opinion. It would be very tedious to preface everything with "I think". It seem very common here to ask that everything be backed up if you don't agree

by gozo 11y ago

It's an opinion. It would be very tedious to preface everything with "I think". It seem very common here to ask that everything be backed up if you don't agree with it, but don't ask the same thing if you do. Instead of dismissing comments, it would be better to ask for clarification or state why you are disagreeing. Especially as a moderator. The accusation that my comment is "made up" is unfair, not only because it's only as made up as any opinion, but because you make that conclusion based on your disagreement with one of my statements. That is a fallacy if anything. My opinions both about copying and commercialization in SV is well founded on texts like "A General History of Silicon Valley" [0]. That China is doing the same thing SV did in the beginning, is based on my experiences in Shenzhen. The example of drones is based on the great interests in drones in the US[1] and the success of DJI[2]. My last opinion is based on conversations I've had with people from SV, who quite often judge China by very different standards than the US. "ageek123" made a fair argument opposing this. If there's anything that is frustrating on HN, it's not accepting that people have a difference of opinion, background and experiences. Things aren't given the benefit of the doubt to the extent they should, but instead downvoted, flagged, spammed into "controversy" or moderated. This creates an environment where discussions end up being about the "lowest common denominator". I also find it somewhat strange that after more than five years on HN with essentially no interaction with moderation, a couple of days after I e-mail about moderation you make this comment which seems more "aggressive" than usual. Instead of things like "makes grand claims without backing them up", "couldn't possibly know such a thing", "you've made it up", "wishful thinking", "not what we're looking for" and "cheap shots" how about you either disagree[3] if you disagree or do moderation on point if you're doing moderation. "Please substantiate your critic so people have a chance to reply on something other than opinion" seems quite apt. Not that this is a common standard on HN, but at least it would be making HN better. [0] http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/sv.html http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/sv.html [1] https://hackaday.com/tag/drone/ https://hackaday.com/tag/drone/ [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/05/06/dji-drones-frank-wang-china-billionaire/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/05/06/dji-drones-fr... [3] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

dang 11y ago
Opinions aren't a problem. The problem is the combination of dismissiveness ("go on and on", "he's just upset because") and lack of substance. Perhaps you have a solid case that SV's early history is analogous to China today. That would be very interesting [1]. And there's nothing wrong with just summarizing; not every comment needs to be a treatise. But you expressed it in the form of what pg calls a middlebrow dismissal. That's what I objected to, not your opinions. Taking potshots is easy and feels good, but degrades the discourse. This is a tragedy of the commons and we all need to consciously work on reducing it, not least me. This would also be excellent for the diversity of opinion you mention, so I don't see any conflict here. I didn't mean to pick on you personally. I'm not really following your more general complaints about HN, but if you want to explain them further you're welcome to email us. [1] Out of curiosity, I took a look at the SV history website you linked to. It gives rather an opposite impression to what you say. For example it says that SV was involved in Farnsworth's invention of television in 1927 (I found that quite surprising), that Stanford was a "major center of innovation" in the 1930s, and so on.

by gozo 11y ago

dang 11y ago

Opinions aren't a problem. The problem is the combination of dismissiveness ("go on and on", "he's just upset because") and lack of substance. Perhaps you have a solid case that SV's early history is analogous to China today. That would be very interesting [1]. And there's nothing wrong with just summarizing; not every comment needs to be a treatise. But you expressed it in the form of what pg calls a middlebrow dismissal. That's what I objected to, not your opinions. Taking potshots is easy and feels good, but degrades the discourse. This is a tragedy of the commons and we all need to consciously work on reducing it, not least me. This would also be excellent for the diversity of opinion you mention, so I don't see any conflict here. I didn't mean to pick on you personally. I'm not really following your more general complaints about HN, but if you want to explain them further you're welcome to email us. [1] Out of curiosity, I took a look at the SV history website you linked to. It gives rather an opposite impression to what you say. For example it says that SV was involved in Farnsworth's invention of television in 1927 (I found that quite surprising), that Stanford was a "major center of innovation" in the 1930s, and so on.