> It sounds like you're saying something revolutionary happened here, or should have happened here, but hasn't and won't ever I think it won't happen because H

> It sounds like you're saying something revolutionary happened here, or should have happened here, but hasn't and won't ever I think it won't happen because HN (like many or most communities) seems to be vulnerable to, for lack of a better term, "groupthink." Like when an article about a specific topic pops up and seemingly the entire community has already formed a specific opinion about it. It's nearly impossible to make a dent in it and most of us learn pretty quickly that the opposing view will be attacked, sometimes viciously. > because of mismanagement and poor quality discussion Not at all. My reference to the CIA paper (I'm guessing that's where the management aspect comes in) was an illustration of the types of things the intelligence community spends time fleshing out. I don't think HN particularly suffers from poor quality discussion or mismanagement. > Also, perhaps more importantly, why? What motive could "they"(the CIA, I guess?) have for diluting the conversations here? There are few large places where the influential tech community gathers to discuss topics of importance. In the same way that control over public opinion (propaganda) is beneficial to motivated parties, it seems reasonable to me that control over our opinions can be used.