3 ms·

If by quoting this you are saying good faith applies to article sources as much as to other HN members then I think that guideline could be clearer.

dang 7y ago
I thought that for a while too, but then realized that article writers are someone, so it's covered.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Requiring commenters to assume good faith and attack the strongest possible version of the argument is a wonderful tool to keep discussion civil and productive. I don't see how this can possibly by applied to the internet at large which is absolutely full of loud evil people operating in bad faith.
  - dang 7y ago
    HN is a large enough sample that I don't think it's so different from humans in general, including internet humans in general. If that's right, then the differences you're talking about are mostly contextual. In this context, we do much better by practicing the guidelines in relation to everyone, even article authors. The point is not that we owe them that, but that we owe ourselves that, because it's how we can maintain our community together.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      I respectfully disagree that internet humans are a representative sample of humans or that HN humans represent a sample of internet humans. In both cases the sample isn't random. Perhaps overly optimistically I believe both samples are on average better than the overall population. People that have access to an internet connection have on average a better chance of also having access to an education. People that read hacker news are on average more likely to be the type who have the desire to read and comprehend a topic more so than the average person who often desires no more than a shallow understanding of what they believe will directly effect themselves and their fortunes. I do think we often speak more frankly OF people than TO them even when being civil. I can think of a fair number of people where honest dialogue regarding them or their ideas would be at best insulting no matter how neutrally one proposed to conduct one self. Wherein these people literally promote evil not speaking plainly is a greater ill than being unkind. Article's written by such folks are literally all over the net but rarely if ever appear on the main page for Hacker News. You have I'm sure more insight than I about whether they are submitted in the first place. I guess you can say its practicable to be decent to one another in an environment composed by a great than average concentration of decent people wherein all the really indecent people are either discouraged from entering in the first place or excluded thereafter.

dang 7y ago

I thought that for a while too, but then realized that article writers are someone, so it's covered.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Requiring commenters to assume good faith and attack the strongest possible version of the argument is a wonderful tool to keep discussion civil and productive. I don't see how this can possibly by applied to the internet at large which is absolutely full of loud evil people operating in bad faith.
- dang 7y ago
  HN is a large enough sample that I don't think it's so different from humans in general, including internet humans in general. If that's right, then the differences you're talking about are mostly contextual. In this context, we do much better by practicing the guidelines in relation to everyone, even article authors. The point is not that we owe them that, but that we owe ourselves that, because it's how we can maintain our community together.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    I respectfully disagree that internet humans are a representative sample of humans or that HN humans represent a sample of internet humans. In both cases the sample isn't random. Perhaps overly optimistically I believe both samples are on average better than the overall population. People that have access to an internet connection have on average a better chance of also having access to an education. People that read hacker news are on average more likely to be the type who have the desire to read and comprehend a topic more so than the average person who often desires no more than a shallow understanding of what they believe will directly effect themselves and their fortunes. I do think we often speak more frankly OF people than TO them even when being civil. I can think of a fair number of people where honest dialogue regarding them or their ideas would be at best insulting no matter how neutrally one proposed to conduct one self. Wherein these people literally promote evil not speaking plainly is a greater ill than being unkind. Article's written by such folks are literally all over the net but rarely if ever appear on the main page for Hacker News. You have I'm sure more insight than I about whether they are submitted in the first place. I guess you can say its practicable to be decent to one another in an environment composed by a great than average concentration of decent people wherein all the really indecent people are either discouraged from entering in the first place or excluded thereafter.