4 ms·

There is not often a monolithic "HN", but instead a group of people who decide to engage or not based on the subject matter. We need more media literacy around

by nemild 8y ago

There is not often a monolithic "HN", but instead a group of people who decide to engage or not based on the subject matter. We need more media literacy around HN and Reddit. You just need a few users to upvote something, and people often respond when they see the opposing view (this is why conservatives and liberals in the US so often take the most extreme statements on the other side, and critique/retweet them; better engagement and an easier way to caricature the opposing side). It's interesting to think about how different posts attract wholly different tribes, meaning HN is hundreds of sub-groups not a monolith. There might be a post on a Ruby gem, and the entire commenter group are Ruby-ists who hold common views on opposing languages. You might see this as "HN believes X", but instead it's the subset of people attracted by that post that you're really interacting with. Will add this as an example to my media literacy guide for engs: https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer

asafira 8y ago
To expand a bit: I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that don't have a "right" response --- i.e., where you can get a good view of exactly the right way to feel about something given the first few comments. Lots of these issues have many angles you can come from, and I hope people are (a) willing to keep themselves to a high-enough standard to think for themselves and see that it's a grey area (that they might have a bias for one side or another). You can't just assume the top post is definitely the right thing, even with a good number of upvotes. (b) willing to read more posts further down, giving them plenty of respect, and contribute to the conversation. Maybe a better way to rank comments is something more probabilistic rather than just ranking by (num_upvotes - num_downvotes). (Actually, how is it done now?)
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  > I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that don't have a "right" response Indeed. I know I keep seeing during the immigration debate (of which is recent). Liberal-leaning say that we should provide due process and let in refugees. This is argument in good faith. Conservatives say that we have a body of law that must be adhered to regarding immigration. This too is a valid argument. I may disagree with its interpretation, but I believe it too is in good faith. "Womp womp", "I dont really care do u" is the style of discourse we're seeing. If the administration comments were on here with HN, dang would likely make the comment dead and leave a message of a ban. Back to the main point - it feels like society as a whole (and HN within that) is lowering the accuracy and persuasive qualities of language to something I saw elsewhere. Idiocracy. Who can shout the loudest; Who can rapid-fire lies and half-truths; who can redirect hatred and bile - these people seem to be the ones on top dictating properness these days.
  - nemild 8y ago
    But even Dang is just a single person. We really need to design systems (social networks) that encourage this type of thoughtful debate. Right now, all the incentives in social media are around "engagement" (upvotes, likes, retweets, large amounts of comments)
Judgmentality 8y ago
> and people often respond when they see the opposing view (this is why conservatives and liberals in the US so often take the most extreme statements on the other side, and critique/retweet them; better engagement and an easier way to caricature the opposing side) https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07
- nemild 8y ago
  This is great! Added to my media literacy guide: https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer/commit/3d8091960e81d14f5bcc8803a6c3d3965a10728f https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer/commit/3d8091960e...
andrei_says_ 8y ago
Thank you for the resource you’ve created on github. Love seeing using that platform for non-code related projects.

by nemild 8y ago

asafira 8y ago

To expand a bit: I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that don't have a "right" response --- i.e., where you can get a good view of exactly the right way to feel about something given the first few comments. Lots of these issues have many angles you can come from, and I hope people are (a) willing to keep themselves to a high-enough standard to think for themselves and see that it's a grey area (that they might have a bias for one side or another). You can't just assume the top post is definitely the right thing, even with a good number of upvotes. (b) willing to read more posts further down, giving them plenty of respect, and contribute to the conversation. Maybe a better way to rank comments is something more probabilistic rather than just ranking by (num_upvotes - num_downvotes). (Actually, how is it done now?)

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that don't have a "right" response Indeed. I know I keep seeing during the immigration debate (of which is recent). Liberal-leaning say that we should provide due process and let in refugees. This is argument in good faith. Conservatives say that we have a body of law that must be adhered to regarding immigration. This too is a valid argument. I may disagree with its interpretation, but I believe it too is in good faith. "Womp womp", "I dont really care do u" is the style of discourse we're seeing. If the administration comments were on here with HN, dang would likely make the comment dead and leave a message of a ban. Back to the main point - it feels like society as a whole (and HN within that) is lowering the accuracy and persuasive qualities of language to something I saw elsewhere. Idiocracy. Who can shout the loudest; Who can rapid-fire lies and half-truths; who can redirect hatred and bile - these people seem to be the ones on top dictating properness these days.
- nemild 8y ago
  But even Dang is just a single person. We really need to design systems (social networks) that encourage this type of thoughtful debate. Right now, all the incentives in social media are around "engagement" (upvotes, likes, retweets, large amounts of comments)

Judgmentality 8y ago

> and people often respond when they see the opposing view (this is why conservatives and liberals in the US so often take the most extreme statements on the other side, and critique/retweet them; better engagement and an easier way to caricature the opposing side) https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07

nemild 8y ago
This is great! Added to my media literacy guide: https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer/commit/3d8091960e81d14f5bcc8803a6c3d3965a10728f https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer/commit/3d8091960e...

andrei_says_ 8y ago

Thank you for the resource you’ve created on github. Love seeing using that platform for non-code related projects.