4 ms·
If they provide an avenue for topical and reasonable discourse, then yes. People (at least some people) tend toward the need for discourse to temper and test t
by 52-6F-62 9y ago
If they provide an avenue for topical and reasonable discourse, then yes.
People (at least some people) tend toward the need for discourse to temper and test their ideas. I mean, you're commenting on HN.
- brad0 9y agoWhat makes HN comments great that other comments systems don't have? It's the guidelines. By writing guidelines that promote useful discourse you allow everyone involved to learn more about their own biases and shortcomings. Every person that writes their opinion grows when reading the varied responses (as long as they're open to other people's perspectives).
- hacking_again 9y agoThe text-only interface with no 3rd-party ads plus the smart person cult of YC / PG contribute a lot.
- memeCrasher 9y agoSmarter and more insightful commentators. That's pretty much it. Once the population gets too big and the level of discourse too low, the intelligent people will move to greener pastures with better signal:noise ratios. Slashdot's moderation system didn't save them, and HN's moderation system won't either. I've yet to see a comment system that promotes signal:noise ratio over groupthink.
- rocqua 9y agoExactly, HN works because of it's audience. This leads to weird incentives though, promoting HN to widely might worsen it by diluting the 'good' audience. Not to forget the discussion about who is part of the 'good' audience, that discussion is bound to be toxic.
- eevilspock 9y agoSo you don't think HN has groupthink? Doesn't every groupthink community describe themselves as "Smarter and more insightful commentators"? I'm pretty sure Trump or Clinton voter websites consider their signal-to-noise high and everyone else's low.