4 ms·

Same goes for HN. Even with throwaways, the point system serves as this “corrective” barometer, that you’re expected to notice, even care about, and supposed to

Same goes for HN. Even with throwaways, the point system serves as this “corrective” barometer, that you’re expected to notice, even care about, and supposed to strive toward. But perhaps most pathetically, even the moderators are brainwashed by it, as if the positivity trends of some mob are the smartest ruler to obey. So, what if I disagree with the mob, and what if I’m right? Well, the eigenstate of schroedinger’s cat tells us that there’s some degree of probablity that excuses us from ever taking that bet, so you can eat this hellban and lap up the antikarma like it’s the secretions of your wildest fantasy. Enjoy the vacuum of the echochamber. In space, no one can hear you scream.

jodrellblank 8y ago
So, what if I disagree with the mob, and what if I’m right? Exercise your freedom to go somewhere else, some not-privately-run-webiste? Why, if you dislike the site so much, come back and post emo whiny vitriol?
- smokeyj 8y ago
  The principle still stands. Why care about points? Wasn’t that the motivating factor to remove displaying comment points on HN in the first place? Facilitating hive mentality? If everyone agrees with a comment it probably adds no value. If everyone disagrees it probably adds no value. Maybe interesting discussions should be sorted by controversial, but I don’t think that would be a “safe space”.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    That's a fallacy. The best comments in HN aren't the "edgy" or controversial ones, they are the ones where someone shares information that I've never seen somewhere else. Saying offensive things doesn't lift the level of discourse, no matter how much people who would love not to be downvoted complain about the "hive mind".
    - smokeyj 8y ago
      Directly equates controversy to offensiveness. Claims to not be part of the hive.
      - krapp 8y ago
        Why are people whose views differ from your "the hive", but you, and those with whom you agree, are not?
        smokeyj 8y ago
        I guess being against censorship is inherently hypocritical given you're trying to censor the censors. I'll have to live with that hypocrisy.
  - eitland 8y ago
    > Wasn’t that the motivating factor to remove displaying comment points on HN in the first place? lobste.rs shows points (and moderation logs and who invited who). It still feels much "safer" than HN, but I guess the real reason is because they are much stricter about what topics are accepted. Which means HN is more interesting to me but I also like lobste.rs a lot.
  - vivekd 8y ago
    In a way that's 4chans strength. The comments and threads that get most noticed are the ones with most replies - ie the most controversial ones. Thats why Alexandria Ocasio Cortz is one of the most prominently posted figures on 4chans alt-light/pol/ board
- adrianN 8y ago
  I don't think it's good for communities when they became echo chambers and alienate people with different opinions.
- fnovd 8y ago
  This is slightly meta, but I find it interesting that the person you're attacking is questioning the utility of a point-based system and yet that very system is trying to silence your speech rather than theirs. The mob wants you to know that refusing to question the mob is against the rules.
  - dymk 8y ago
    The mob wants to think it's self-critical when asked directly. But I dare the mob to be self-critical of some popularly held belief without the pretext of this meta commentary. HN can be very one sided, and it shows in lots of discussions, from ads to piracy to language choices.
  - jshevek 8y ago
    Or the mob simply didn't like their tone or phrasing.
- skurpaduhurr 8y ago
  Railing against trends is less a commentary against the premise of the site, and more a commentary against the emergent whims of groupthink. Points systems amplify the perception of groupthink, and getting karma stomped into a ban happens a lot. Getting banned for a greyed out comment is kind of lame, and I think a certain sort of darwinism, of letting vitriolic people express their contempt has utility. In other words, more people should develop a thick skin, and fewer people should be silenced. In theory, that sounds good, but obviously it can also go wrong, to let people bloviate too much. I think the solution is to permit the full stream but classify and sort the responses, but in most cases, NLP just isn’t good enough to automate grouped selections of comments, so we get stuck with a one dimensional mechanical turk voting rank. Yay versus boo! I don’t enjoy the idea of AI submerging buried comments deepet, but trusting people to vote according to quality of discussion is a dubious gambit, and you really only get an edge detection doppler return revealing the joints of political fault lines, which gets old when holy wars guide many an opinion.

jodrellblank 8y ago

So, what if I disagree with the mob, and what if I’m right? Exercise your freedom to go somewhere else, some not-privately-run-webiste? Why, if you dislike the site so much, come back and post emo whiny vitriol?

smokeyj 8y ago
The principle still stands. Why care about points? Wasn’t that the motivating factor to remove displaying comment points on HN in the first place? Facilitating hive mentality? If everyone agrees with a comment it probably adds no value. If everyone disagrees it probably adds no value. Maybe interesting discussions should be sorted by controversial, but I don’t think that would be a “safe space”.
- Tomte 8y ago
  That's a fallacy. The best comments in HN aren't the "edgy" or controversial ones, they are the ones where someone shares information that I've never seen somewhere else. Saying offensive things doesn't lift the level of discourse, no matter how much people who would love not to be downvoted complain about the "hive mind".
  - smokeyj 8y ago
    Directly equates controversy to offensiveness. Claims to not be part of the hive.
    - krapp 8y ago
      Why are people whose views differ from your "the hive", but you, and those with whom you agree, are not?
      - smokeyj 8y ago
        I guess being against censorship is inherently hypocritical given you're trying to censor the censors. I'll have to live with that hypocrisy.
- eitland 8y ago
  > Wasn’t that the motivating factor to remove displaying comment points on HN in the first place? lobste.rs shows points (and moderation logs and who invited who). It still feels much "safer" than HN, but I guess the real reason is because they are much stricter about what topics are accepted. Which means HN is more interesting to me but I also like lobste.rs a lot.
- vivekd 8y ago
  In a way that's 4chans strength. The comments and threads that get most noticed are the ones with most replies - ie the most controversial ones. Thats why Alexandria Ocasio Cortz is one of the most prominently posted figures on 4chans alt-light/pol/ board
adrianN 8y ago
I don't think it's good for communities when they became echo chambers and alienate people with different opinions.
fnovd 8y ago
This is slightly meta, but I find it interesting that the person you're attacking is questioning the utility of a point-based system and yet that very system is trying to silence your speech rather than theirs. The mob wants you to know that refusing to question the mob is against the rules.
- dymk 8y ago
  The mob wants to think it's self-critical when asked directly. But I dare the mob to be self-critical of some popularly held belief without the pretext of this meta commentary. HN can be very one sided, and it shows in lots of discussions, from ads to piracy to language choices.
- jshevek 8y ago
  Or the mob simply didn't like their tone or phrasing.
skurpaduhurr 8y ago
Railing against trends is less a commentary against the premise of the site, and more a commentary against the emergent whims of groupthink. Points systems amplify the perception of groupthink, and getting karma stomped into a ban happens a lot. Getting banned for a greyed out comment is kind of lame, and I think a certain sort of darwinism, of letting vitriolic people express their contempt has utility. In other words, more people should develop a thick skin, and fewer people should be silenced. In theory, that sounds good, but obviously it can also go wrong, to let people bloviate too much. I think the solution is to permit the full stream but classify and sort the responses, but in most cases, NLP just isn’t good enough to automate grouped selections of comments, so we get stuck with a one dimensional mechanical turk voting rank. Yay versus boo! I don’t enjoy the idea of AI submerging buried comments deepet, but trusting people to vote according to quality of discussion is a dubious gambit, and you really only get an edge detection doppler return revealing the joints of political fault lines, which gets old when holy wars guide many an opinion.