I agree then; but it's partly out of the fact that we're using centralised technology to share ideas. It's right to be concerned when the discourse is controlle

I agree then; but it's partly out of the fact that we're using centralised technology to share ideas. It's right to be concerned when the discourse is controlled by a small number of peoeple who act out of the desire for profit, which is what's happening here. The quicker we can dispense of the idea that the "popular" Internet offers a "free market of ideas", the quicker we'll see people losing trust in the controllers of the "popular" Internet, from Youtube to domain registrars. Reddit and HN don't help either; they propagate this idea that if your comment is with a negative score (disapproved of by two or more people), it's not worth listening to. They do this by taking measures to obscure your comment, such as making it hard to read (on HN) or hiding it below a button (on Reddit). The idea that an idea is only worth listening to because of its popularity is only less pernicious to the idea that an idea is only worth listening to if it brings the messenger profit. Truth is being commodified. (I'm the person you replied to but this is my alternate account, because the HN moderators have put a flag on my account since many months ago which stops me from commenting too quickly; it activates if I comment more than 3 or 4 times within half an hour, and then stops me from posting more than twice every two hours. How ironic.)