6 ms·

> For several domains I know something about, the [HN] comments are painfully misguided and just bad But in the case of HN, if you leave them that way in a way

> For several domains I know something about, the [HN] comments are painfully misguided and just bad But in the case of HN, if you leave them that way in a way it's your fault :-P Meaning, that you could write a paragraph or two setting the rest of us straight. The exception is subjects that are extremely politically sensitive and controversial, in which your paragraph or two could be downvoted to oblivion and start a uselessly derailed thread, no matter how incredibly polite you are. If HN has 'groupthink' opinion that is completely wrong on kernel scheduling, you can set it right, politely and by sticking to the facts. If HN has 'groupthink' opinion that is completely wrong on a political or other controversial issue, I would politely abstain.

chongli 11y ago
If HN has 'groupthink' opinion that is completely wrong on a political or other controversial issue, I would politely abstain. No way! I love commenting on political and controversial issues. Never let a fear of downvotes act as a chilling effect on your speech. If you believe you have something truly valuable to add then get it out there! I often find myself surprised that I'm upvoted for swimming against the current. It may turn out that there were multiple people who had the same idea as me but they were staying out of it until I commented.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  or, in many cases, people who agree but couldn't express the same idea as well as you, or even people who disagree but learned something. Upvotes aren't only a sign of likemindedness.
  - barsonme 11y ago
    I've often noted how some controversial threads follow the pattern (sometimes a bit more drawn out): > OP's controversial comment (-50) > response (+10) > OP's responds back with evidence or clarification (+100) where OP was simply misunderstood.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      Or alternatively, their score flips from positive, to negative and then to positive (or the opposite) but manages after a while to get an equilibrium and stabilises at 1. I really think some folks must get a little manic when the realise the comment hasn't gone grey...
    - SixSigma 11y ago
      I get that often. It really is a symptom that should have been broken when learning to writing academic style. Assertions need citations or evidence.
- logicallee 11y ago
  I agree with you in some cases but not in others. I'll give you a recent example: there's nothing wrong with servers running ad-block detectors and not serving content to people running ad-blockers. It's within their rights. It's not "within their rights" for people to circumvent these and try to see the content anyway. Since on a technical level the content owner's web server is both serving the content to you at their expense, for which your browser makes a request, and also is specifically serving copyrighted content, and finally on a moral level has created that content at their expense, I consider it absolutely, 100% within their moral, legal, technical, and decent rights to throw up a TOS saying: "Our business model is showing you advertising, and you agree to load and not block ads. Click 'I agree' to proceed". It's in my opinion within their moral, ethical, technical, and legal rights to detect and block people using ad blockers. It's not a technical "arms race" for people installing plugins that let them trick the server into serving them content even though they're not displaying ads, while the server chooses not to display them content. Even if there is NO such click-through TOS being thrown up, the server by running ad-detection algorithms makes this relationship abundantly clear. I wrote this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11458626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11458626 All of my contributions were downvoted, which is fine, but people were also extremely rude. They didn't understand my bakery analogy, and focused on something irrelevant, the TOS. (This is like saying the bakery didn't have a sign up saying you couldn't reach behind the counter and take something. I mean, the fact that the server is actively running ad-block detection and wanting not to serve you isn't enough? It's also irrelevant because it takes one line to add that to a TOS so it's not a real response.) So here is an example of a fine contribution in which my view is correct and HN groupthink is completely wrong. untog pointed out that my comment was correct by stating "Seems telling that you're getting downvotes but no replies explaining how your comparison is wrong..." Going forward, of course I will not be using that analogy.. Indeed I won't post on any ad-block related subjects. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't expect people not to run ad-blockers, just as the existence of copyright doesn't mean I don't expect people to torrent stuff. I just mean that they're not morally in the right, they shouldn't act righteous about it, and servers that refuse to serve people content when those people are running ad blockers are in no way (not even a tiny way) in the wrong. I'll probably be downvoted for this, I just wanted to give you an example of something that I wouldn't post. I literally wouldn't be posting this now except as an example of something people will downvote.

chongli 11y ago

If HN has 'groupthink' opinion that is completely wrong on a political or other controversial issue, I would politely abstain. No way! I love commenting on political and controversial issues. Never let a fear of downvotes act as a chilling effect on your speech. If you believe you have something truly valuable to add then get it out there! I often find myself surprised that I'm upvoted for swimming against the current. It may turn out that there were multiple people who had the same idea as me but they were staying out of it until I commented.

lotharbot 11y ago
or, in many cases, people who agree but couldn't express the same idea as well as you, or even people who disagree but learned something. Upvotes aren't only a sign of likemindedness.
- barsonme 11y ago
  I've often noted how some controversial threads follow the pattern (sometimes a bit more drawn out): > OP's controversial comment (-50) > response (+10) > OP's responds back with evidence or clarification (+100) where OP was simply misunderstood.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Or alternatively, their score flips from positive, to negative and then to positive (or the opposite) but manages after a while to get an equilibrium and stabilises at 1. I really think some folks must get a little manic when the realise the comment hasn't gone grey...
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    I get that often. It really is a symptom that should have been broken when learning to writing academic style. Assertions need citations or evidence.
logicallee 11y ago
I agree with you in some cases but not in others. I'll give you a recent example: there's nothing wrong with servers running ad-block detectors and not serving content to people running ad-blockers. It's within their rights. It's not "within their rights" for people to circumvent these and try to see the content anyway. Since on a technical level the content owner's web server is both serving the content to you at their expense, for which your browser makes a request, and also is specifically serving copyrighted content, and finally on a moral level has created that content at their expense, I consider it absolutely, 100% within their moral, legal, technical, and decent rights to throw up a TOS saying: "Our business model is showing you advertising, and you agree to load and not block ads. Click 'I agree' to proceed". It's in my opinion within their moral, ethical, technical, and legal rights to detect and block people using ad blockers. It's not a technical "arms race" for people installing plugins that let them trick the server into serving them content even though they're not displaying ads, while the server chooses not to display them content. Even if there is NO such click-through TOS being thrown up, the server by running ad-detection algorithms makes this relationship abundantly clear. I wrote this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11458626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11458626 All of my contributions were downvoted, which is fine, but people were also extremely rude. They didn't understand my bakery analogy, and focused on something irrelevant, the TOS. (This is like saying the bakery didn't have a sign up saying you couldn't reach behind the counter and take something. I mean, the fact that the server is actively running ad-block detection and wanting not to serve you isn't enough? It's also irrelevant because it takes one line to add that to a TOS so it's not a real response.) So here is an example of a fine contribution in which my view is correct and HN groupthink is completely wrong. untog pointed out that my comment was correct by stating "Seems telling that you're getting downvotes but no replies explaining how your comparison is wrong..." Going forward, of course I will not be using that analogy.. Indeed I won't post on any ad-block related subjects. Of course, this doesn't mean I don't expect people not to run ad-blockers, just as the existence of copyright doesn't mean I don't expect people to torrent stuff. I just mean that they're not morally in the right, they shouldn't act righteous about it, and servers that refuse to serve people content when those people are running ad blockers are in no way (not even a tiny way) in the wrong. I'll probably be downvoted for this, I just wanted to give you an example of something that I wouldn't post. I literally wouldn't be posting this now except as an example of something people will downvote.