4 ms·
Agreed. Discussion and debate should be more than hot takes.. That said, most people won't read a wall-of-text from a stranger - HN being the exception ;-)
by sbarre 8y ago
Agreed. Discussion and debate should be more than hot takes..
That said, most people won't read a wall-of-text from a stranger - HN being the exception ;-)
- aloisdg 8y agoReddit can be quite good for that too.
- organsnyder 8y agoTo counter the downvotes: yes, Reddit can be a good forum for productive dialogue. It depends on the subreddit you're on—there are some subs (especially smaller and/or ones with heavy, thoughtful moderation) that are real gems.
- Springtime 8y agoI found it somewhat ironic at the downvotes considering the lowering in quality of HN comments I've observed over the past couple years, coming across comments in more frequency that remind me of stereotypical Reddit one-liners and off-the-cuff remarks (not true for all subs but it is a common perception), in some threads even being among the highest rated where previously they would be looked down upon. Thinking back it coincides somewhere around the same time HN improved their mobile viewing experience. Unsure if it's related but does feel HN reached some wider audience, or at least has a broader acceptance of varying levels of quality for comments.
- coldtea 8y ago>That said, most people won't read a wall-of-text from a stranger - HN being the exception Then most people need better education (and not just vocational training).
- claudiawerner 8y agoI don't think we should confuse lack of willingness to read long form text on the Internet as a lapse in education of those people. A lot of people don't have time or the interest. I'm not sure if I qualify, but I'm a third year university student and all I've learned is that the Internet is tiring, and responding in detail will guarantee people don't read your comment. The amount of things discussed in philosophy and science journals which people aren't aware of is mind-boggling, to the point where every argument online takes place not taking into account any research and resorting to pure speculation and fans of each speculative hypothesis (stated as fact of course) up/downvoting. This happens on Reddit and HN despite it being more visible on Twitter and such. But even I don't have the time to look up the research on any given topic I want to care about.
- coldtea 8y ago>I don't think we should confuse lack of willingness to read long form text on the Internet as a lapse in education of those people. A lot of people don't have time or the interest. I'm not sure if I qualify, but I'm a third year university student and all I've learned is that the Internet is tiring, and responding in detail will guarantee people don't read your comment For some things, absolutely (after all 99% on the internet is crap). But if one can never do it, but can, e.g. spend 3 hours checking celebrity gossip, then there's a problem!
- aluren 8y agoI don't see why internet strangers think their walls of text are owed eyeballs. Time is short, the amount of content on the internet is near-infinite, much of that content is just noise, and without a very serious assumption that a source is both trustworthy and informative you'd be better off discarding it and moving on. Reading things thoroughly takes time, and time is money. Scientists are paid to read the current literature on their field. Government and corporate analysts are paid to collect data and provide synthetic memos to executives. Journalists are paid to read sources as a background to their story. If you want me to read your wall of text, you either have to convince me that you are worth reading (through your reputation) or pay me to do it. HN is indeed an exception in that I find the site to be a kind of guarantee that most of users are well-versed in tech topics and thus have something interesting to say. In that sense the whole website provides a reputation to its users. Twitter has no such guarantee.