3 ms·

The only time I ever see positive views on Slack here is when Microsoft Teams is brought up :D

• Kiro 8y ago
  It's because HN is a stereotypical echo chamber where the correct opinion right now that fits the stereotype is to hate Slack.
  • JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    That added nothing to the conversation. HN may have a uniformity of opinion, because a large fraction of effective people in Software don't like something. That would be worth talking about. Ad Hominem attacks are pointless.
    • Frost1x 8y ago
      While his/her comment may have been narrowly directed and could even be bordering trolling/flame-baiting, it made me think about how the structure of discussion groups in general could encourage echo chambers. His/her comment is a case-in-point as it's being downvoted. I tend to believe discussion groups with comment voting systems (e.g., Reddit, Digg years ago) tend to further or more quickly close communication feedback loops that help lead to echo chambers: "what we like, what don't we like." People who want to actively engage will be more quickly discouraged if their perspectives differ and are quickly shunned, even if they're potentially valid. Those who remain will be conditioned with positive reinforcement when they repeat the status quo ("rewarded" with up-votes from peers). Comment voting systems tend to suppress perspectives that challenge the status quo in general (they can also promote challenges, though anecdotally, I observe this far less). Even without voting systems though, peer pressure in discussions shapes the discussions in a feedback loop that, in my opinion, leads to echo chambers of perspectives. Obviously the tradeoff is: what's the alternative? True garbage is posted that should be removed (spam, direct personal attacks, etc.). Moderator and editor systems shape discussions to their bias vs. a more distributed voting approach biases towards the status quo. Another option is to allow any perspective a perpetual voice (false negative spam and uncivil discussion emerges) which requires filtering/ignoring on a per participant/client basis (not good at promoting return visitors who want quality discussions), but this does allow exposure to new and differing perspectives. I'm not sure what the best solution is. As you pointed out, and I agree entirely with you, his/her comment certainly could have been presented better and didn't need to attack HN directly. At the very least, for me, it illustrates frustration as a symptom of a potentially systematic problem. Sometimes, I do wonder if "trolling" and "flamebaiting" often regarded as negative behaviors, are in reality healthy for discussion groups. They encourage a never ending revaluation (QA/QC, CD even) of ideologies adopted by the status quo and foster a competitive behavior of ideas using emotion for drive and momentum. I've read some of the best in-depth and even enlightening discussions spun out from such comments, once you get past initially emotionally fueled personal attacks. To be fair, I've also observed some of the most worthless volleyball of personal attacks. I suggest those disagreements and the emotional fuel help us push away complacency and strive for improvement instead of avoiding challenges. Without any emotion, few have desire to bpther exploring some ideas. Emotion isn't required to have a progressive discussion, but it seems to me to help light fires and engage more ideas, especially if done tastefully.