4 ms·

> It often feels like there is one prevailing slant on this site and those of the majority are free to push their views while the rest of us must either read it

> It often feels like there is one prevailing slant on this site and those of the majority are free to push their views while the rest of us must either read it and ignore it or face the onslaught of downvotes if we express a dissenting opinion. Are there any online communities where their political opinions match more with yours? Why don't you hang out there instead? I realize that's reinforcing an echo chamber, but it sounds like you're looking for more of an echo chamber, right? > even though I have made my points in an informed and respectful way Maybe an example of a time you made a point in an informed and respectful way only to be downvoted and derided would help clarify? > Unless HN can figure out how to give fair treatment to minority opinions, it's best to exclude these discussions entirely. I strongly disagree. I don't know what "fair treatment" means, but if enough people on the site feel a topic is worth talking about, we should talk about it. Specific incidences of abuse should be flagged, but again, it's hard for me to say one way or another without examples showing what you mean. As to the overall question of whether politics should be allowed on HN, HN started as "Startup News". It's always been a site about entrepreneurship, mostly in the tech industry. Entrepreurship is intimately linked to politics in obvious and non-obvious ways. Politics has to do with taxes, healthcare, immigration, legality of certain types of research, market size and access, shifting demographic trends, financing sources, and much more. Edit: I removed a final sentence because it's moot and doesn't add to my actual argument.

dang 10y ago
> To take this blanket approach of "No talking about politics!" is... For one week. > "Forbidden topics" because some people's feelings are getting hurt? It's about a lot more than that, as I tried to explain in the text above. There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we cannot be both of them.
- dave_sullivan 10y ago
  > For one week. Then I hope it's just for a week. I know HN weights certain topics down already. I think there's a good argument for some of that, but I don't see an argument for more of it. > There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we literally cannot be both of them. FWIW, as a user, I have not noticed an uptick in politically combative discussion on HN, although I have noticed the uptick in political posts. If your target demographic is basically founders/hackers/entrepreneurs/whatever, having a place to find relatively sane discussions about politics is a good thing. HN is pretty much that, I can't think of a place that's better. I do think having lots of strong opinions in one place is a good thing and helps those opinions evolve towards something better. Echo chambers result in the information equivalent of inbreeding. But that's my point, I very much don't want HN to become an echo chamber by, for example, banning political posts for more than 1 week (which is a weird experiment, but fine).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we cannot be both of them. I disagree. You cannot support intellectual curiosity without healthy, relatively unrestrained (in subject matter) debate. Now, simply tribal displays that aren't debate where people engage with each other, are a problem and need to be corralled effectively to avoid becoming.the dominant form of activity. But not only is "politically combative" not opposed to "intellectually curious" in a site, the former is essentially a necessitate to accept if you are going to have the latter.
  - grzm 10y ago
    From your profile, you've been around the block more than a few times here on HN. Your disagreement here has me puzzled, as it seems to be disagreement for its own sake rather than understanding the intent of the detox week and attempting to refine the language explaining it. I understand dang's "politically combative" to describe what you state as "tribal displays that aren't debate". Or am I completely misreading your comment? If that's the case, would you elaborate? Also, how would you handle behavior such as that displayed in - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13041886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13041886 What actually constructive on balance came out of these discussions? How can we improve the signal-to-noise ratio/reduce the tribal displays? This is a topic I'm genuinely interested in, so your take on it given your experience here on HN is of particular interest to me. I think it's not putting words in dang's mouth to say reducing the tribal displays (as opposed to stifle intellectual curiosity) is exactly what detox week is attempting to accomplish.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Your disagreement here has me puzzled, as it seems to be disagreement for its own sake rather than understanding the intent of the detox week and attempting to refine the language explaining it. I'd love to understand the intent of detox week. I don't (either in terms of the intended scope of the policy or the motivation and intended goal state.) And the issue I'm taking with elements of the description of either by dang (in a couple places in this thread) are both because I disagree with them phrased, and hope that pointing that out will lead to responses that better elucidate the whole picture. But I suspect that the whole thing is trying to deal with a change in the political climate outside HN by modifying what is already a near-optimal policy in HN to one that is far worse.
olalonde 10y ago
It's not about feelings getting hurt. Some of us just don't get any value out of the political discussion on HN. HN always had guidelines and moderation, this isn't exactly new.
Barrin92 10y ago
>Are there any online communities where their political opinions match more with yours? Why don't you hang out there instead? I realize that's reinforcing an echo chamber, but it sounds like you're looking for more of an echo chamber, right? Trying to diversify discourse here sounds like the opposite of looking for an echo chamber, and the 'tech community' is in dire need of it, at least as far as politics is concerned
chrissnell 10y ago
I don't want to hang out in an echo chamber. I enjoy the diversity of opinions that I find among my coworkers and social media friends. However, neither my workplace nor Facebook feature the "downvote". Being downvoted for expressing an unpopular opinion here is the equivalent of being shoved out of a circle of friends. It doesn't feel good and I don't come here to feel like crap. I don't think I'm all that different than most HN readers when I say that I come here to escape from work or home life for a few minutes and learn about things. Exclusion because you're different has no place on a forum like this.
- reflexive 10y ago
  Being downvoted for expressing an unpopular opinion here is the equivalent of being shoved out of a circle of friends. You should learn to take feedback less personally. It doesn't feel good and I don't come here to feel like crap. If someone uses emotionally charged language to denigrate you, then I think you have a valid complaint. But the interpretation you assign to a downvote is just that - your interpretation.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  Sometimes I get downvotes, it feels like crap, and I realize my comment deserved them. At other times... well, as I once posted, "One thing I've learned around HN is that sometimes you have to wear your downvotes with pride."
  - douche 10y ago
    It can be mildly entertaining to watch a post fluctuate from 1 to -4 to +5 and back and forth multiple times over the course of a couple hours. They are just internet points, after all.
    - webmaven 10y ago
      But... but... Those who die with the most Internet Points win, don't they?
- 10y ago

dang 10y ago

> To take this blanket approach of "No talking about politics!" is... For one week. > "Forbidden topics" because some people's feelings are getting hurt? It's about a lot more than that, as I tried to explain in the text above. There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we cannot be both of them.

dave_sullivan 10y ago
> For one week. Then I hope it's just for a week. I know HN weights certain topics down already. I think there's a good argument for some of that, but I don't see an argument for more of it. > There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we literally cannot be both of them. FWIW, as a user, I have not noticed an uptick in politically combative discussion on HN, although I have noticed the uptick in political posts. If your target demographic is basically founders/hackers/entrepreneurs/whatever, having a place to find relatively sane discussions about politics is a good thing. HN is pretty much that, I can't think of a place that's better. I do think having lots of strong opinions in one place is a good thing and helps those opinions evolve towards something better. Echo chambers result in the information equivalent of inbreeding. But that's my point, I very much don't want HN to become an echo chamber by, for example, banning political posts for more than 1 week (which is a weird experiment, but fine).
dragonwriter 10y ago
> There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we cannot be both of them. I disagree. You cannot support intellectual curiosity without healthy, relatively unrestrained (in subject matter) debate. Now, simply tribal displays that aren't debate where people engage with each other, are a problem and need to be corralled effectively to avoid becoming.the dominant form of activity. But not only is "politically combative" not opposed to "intellectually curious" in a site, the former is essentially a necessitate to accept if you are going to have the latter.
- grzm 10y ago
  From your profile, you've been around the block more than a few times here on HN. Your disagreement here has me puzzled, as it seems to be disagreement for its own sake rather than understanding the intent of the detox week and attempting to refine the language explaining it. I understand dang's "politically combative" to describe what you state as "tribal displays that aren't debate". Or am I completely misreading your comment? If that's the case, would you elaborate? Also, how would you handle behavior such as that displayed in - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13041886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13041886 What actually constructive on balance came out of these discussions? How can we improve the signal-to-noise ratio/reduce the tribal displays? This is a topic I'm genuinely interested in, so your take on it given your experience here on HN is of particular interest to me. I think it's not putting words in dang's mouth to say reducing the tribal displays (as opposed to stifle intellectual curiosity) is exactly what detox week is attempting to accomplish.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Your disagreement here has me puzzled, as it seems to be disagreement for its own sake rather than understanding the intent of the detox week and attempting to refine the language explaining it. I'd love to understand the intent of detox week. I don't (either in terms of the intended scope of the policy or the motivation and intended goal state.) And the issue I'm taking with elements of the description of either by dang (in a couple places in this thread) are both because I disagree with them phrased, and hope that pointing that out will lead to responses that better elucidate the whole picture. But I suspect that the whole thing is trying to deal with a change in the political climate outside HN by modifying what is already a near-optimal policy in HN to one that is far worse.

olalonde 10y ago

It's not about feelings getting hurt. Some of us just don't get any value out of the political discussion on HN. HN always had guidelines and moderation, this isn't exactly new.

Barrin92 10y ago

>Are there any online communities where their political opinions match more with yours? Why don't you hang out there instead? I realize that's reinforcing an echo chamber, but it sounds like you're looking for more of an echo chamber, right? Trying to diversify discourse here sounds like the opposite of looking for an echo chamber, and the 'tech community' is in dire need of it, at least as far as politics is concerned

chrissnell 10y ago

I don't want to hang out in an echo chamber. I enjoy the diversity of opinions that I find among my coworkers and social media friends. However, neither my workplace nor Facebook feature the "downvote". Being downvoted for expressing an unpopular opinion here is the equivalent of being shoved out of a circle of friends. It doesn't feel good and I don't come here to feel like crap. I don't think I'm all that different than most HN readers when I say that I come here to escape from work or home life for a few minutes and learn about things. Exclusion because you're different has no place on a forum like this.

reflexive 10y ago
Being downvoted for expressing an unpopular opinion here is the equivalent of being shoved out of a circle of friends. You should learn to take feedback less personally. It doesn't feel good and I don't come here to feel like crap. If someone uses emotionally charged language to denigrate you, then I think you have a valid complaint. But the interpretation you assign to a downvote is just that - your interpretation.
ScottBurson 10y ago
Sometimes I get downvotes, it feels like crap, and I realize my comment deserved them. At other times... well, as I once posted, "One thing I've learned around HN is that sometimes you have to wear your downvotes with pride."
- douche 10y ago
  It can be mildly entertaining to watch a post fluctuate from 1 to -4 to +5 and back and forth multiple times over the course of a couple hours. They are just internet points, after all.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    But... but... Those who die with the most Internet Points win, don't they?
10y ago