3 ms·

Let's not get too self-congratulatory here. Yes, the civility on HN is much higher than on many other discussion sites, but it's still a lot lower than you'd f

Let's not get too self-congratulatory here. Yes, the civility on HN is much higher than on many other discussion sites, but it's still a lot lower than you'd find in most real-world situations. I agree that throwaway accounts are useful, and that there are times when anonymity is advantageous, and that the added civility that comes with real names is a bad tradeoff in this case. However: in this case, the second point (downvoting) didn't prevent an uncivil (yet insightful) comment from becoming the highest ranked comment in the thread. I'm not saying Suster's suggested fixes are good ones-- but I don't think we should dismiss the problematic out of hand. Unchecked nastiness and incivility are the broken windows of the online community.

arethuza 16y ago
Is the civility level on any site like this doomed to decrease over time as popularity grows?
swombat 16y ago
Actually, having just observed a situation where a bunch of people who met in real life exploded into an immature email discussion full of insults and accusations, I don't think the civility on here is any worse than it is in real life. I think the reason why it feels like "real life" is more civil is that you don't hear about people insulting each other in real life, because they don't usually shout it out on the rooftops (in my experience, after a particularly nasty discussion, both sides prefer to keep it quiet and just not talk to each other anymore).
- mooism2 16y ago
  I think that demonstrates a broader version of his point: people are more civil towards each other in the offline world than they are in the online world.
- amirmc 16y ago
  In addition, most issues in real life don't leave lasting traces the same way that typewritten messages on forums/comment threads do.
anamax 16y ago
> However: in this case, the second point (downvoting) didn't prevent an uncivil (yet insightful) comment from becoming the highest ranked comment in the thread. So? Does it happen often enough to worry about? > still a lot lower than you'd find in most real-world situations. It's not clear that that's true and even if it was, it's not relevant. The relevant comparison is with comparable real-world situations. Which reminds me - there's an acceptable way to call someone an asshole in every situation. Are you measuring "civil" by whether the acceptable form is used or by whether any form is used? If someone is being an asshole and pointing that out is useful, I don't have a problem with what form that takes so long as it doesn't draw unnecessary attention. In fact, failing to point out assholism in many cases is itself uncivil. YMMV.

arethuza 16y ago

Is the civility level on any site like this doomed to decrease over time as popularity grows?

swombat 16y ago

Actually, having just observed a situation where a bunch of people who met in real life exploded into an immature email discussion full of insults and accusations, I don't think the civility on here is any worse than it is in real life. I think the reason why it feels like "real life" is more civil is that you don't hear about people insulting each other in real life, because they don't usually shout it out on the rooftops (in my experience, after a particularly nasty discussion, both sides prefer to keep it quiet and just not talk to each other anymore).

mooism2 16y ago
I think that demonstrates a broader version of his point: people are more civil towards each other in the offline world than they are in the online world.
amirmc 16y ago
In addition, most issues in real life don't leave lasting traces the same way that typewritten messages on forums/comment threads do.

anamax 16y ago

> However: in this case, the second point (downvoting) didn't prevent an uncivil (yet insightful) comment from becoming the highest ranked comment in the thread. So? Does it happen often enough to worry about? > still a lot lower than you'd find in most real-world situations. It's not clear that that's true and even if it was, it's not relevant. The relevant comparison is with comparable real-world situations. Which reminds me - there's an acceptable way to call someone an asshole in every situation. Are you measuring "civil" by whether the acceptable form is used or by whether any form is used? If someone is being an asshole and pointing that out is useful, I don't have a problem with what form that takes so long as it doesn't draw unnecessary attention. In fact, failing to point out assholism in many cases is itself uncivil. YMMV.