4 ms·

> How can you simultaneously be outraged that Facebook is imposing any restrictions on speech at all, and horrified that it isn’t actively molding user behavior

by DenisM 6y ago

> How can you simultaneously be outraged that Facebook is imposing any restrictions on speech at all, and horrified that it isn’t actively molding user behavior on a massive scale? There is a simple answer to that - HN is not a homogeneous set of people; different users have different opinions and express them at different times with different intensity.

knzhou 6y ago
True, but I would have expected at least a little visible disagreement. You never see anybody saying “wait a second, I think making the filter bubble effect a bit worse is actually worth it!” Each individual submission’s comments is just full throated, unanimous condemnation —- even when adjacent comments are directly contradictory. They just don’t engage with the possibility that deciding what to do might actually be hard.
- elicash 6y ago
  People speak up more when they disagree than when they agree. Which is why I'm commenting right now.
- prawn 6y ago
  For 15+ years, I've run a sports forum and it is inevitable that societal/political debates emerge in many threads. In recent years, they've become increasingly as you describe. There's almost never a calm, reasonable comment. People get at each other's throats and slinging left-right insults immediately. I think a lot about how @PG almost never posts on HN any more. Might be wrong, but I suspect he's come to resent some of the discourse/attitudes and time-wasting here.
throwlaplace 6y ago
If this were true you'd have the average opinion filter out - naysayers would downvote supporters and vice versa. The truth is in fact that hn is hypocritical and becomes outraged for the sake of outrage just like every other opinionated group (where the raison d etre is to express an opinion rather than discourse). Edit: think hn isn't just about getting attention? Then explain to me why responses are ranked? Or even ranked without requiring a response? Even Amazon reviews in principle require leaving ratings only in good faith (ie having engaged with the product). It's obvious and dang and whomever could make that a perquisite of voting. That they haven't proves my point.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  The Law of Averages isn't actually a law, and everything doesn't balance out in the end.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    Lol the law of large numbers (the real name for the law of averages) is absolutely a law and it's exactly the phenomenon I'm alluding to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
- all-fakes 6y ago
  Responses have to be ranked, because some comments are much more valuable to the reader than others. Well-thought-out comments and spam lie at the extreme ends of the spectrum. I think there's merit to the idea of requiring a response for upvotes or downvotes, but how can you tell whether a response is "genuine"? It sounds like it'd devolve into people leaving vacuous replies just to clear that prerequisite.
  - throwlaplace 6y ago
    >comments are much more valuable to the reader than others This presupposes some kind of universal value function. >but how can you tell whether a response is "genuine"? It sounds like it'd devolve into people leaving vacuous replies just to clear that prerequisite This is like perfect is the enemy of good counterargument. I don't know and I'm not going to hypothesize right here right now where one misstep on my part gives credence to the idea that it's impossible. Here's what I'll say though about modern forums: they fixed a system that wasn't broken as far as discourse goes. When I was in high school the were forums where responses were ordered in time rather than by popularity. Those places were actual venues for discussion. Ranking only exists for monetization. If you don't agree with this then consider professional venues for discourse: academic journals. I have never browsed a journal or arxiv by the number of citations or the hindex or whatever.
    - 6y ago

by DenisM 6y ago

knzhou 6y ago

True, but I would have expected at least a little visible disagreement. You never see anybody saying “wait a second, I think making the filter bubble effect a bit worse is actually worth it!” Each individual submission’s comments is just full throated, unanimous condemnation —- even when adjacent comments are directly contradictory. They just don’t engage with the possibility that deciding what to do might actually be hard.

elicash 6y ago
People speak up more when they disagree than when they agree. Which is why I'm commenting right now.
prawn 6y ago
For 15+ years, I've run a sports forum and it is inevitable that societal/political debates emerge in many threads. In recent years, they've become increasingly as you describe. There's almost never a calm, reasonable comment. People get at each other's throats and slinging left-right insults immediately. I think a lot about how @PG almost never posts on HN any more. Might be wrong, but I suspect he's come to resent some of the discourse/attitudes and time-wasting here.

throwlaplace 6y ago

If this were true you'd have the average opinion filter out - naysayers would downvote supporters and vice versa. The truth is in fact that hn is hypocritical and becomes outraged for the sake of outrage just like every other opinionated group (where the raison d etre is to express an opinion rather than discourse). Edit: think hn isn't just about getting attention? Then explain to me why responses are ranked? Or even ranked without requiring a response? Even Amazon reviews in principle require leaving ratings only in good faith (ie having engaged with the product). It's obvious and dang and whomever could make that a perquisite of voting. That they haven't proves my point.

pessimizer 6y ago
The Law of Averages isn't actually a law, and everything doesn't balance out in the end.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  Lol the law of large numbers (the real name for the law of averages) is absolutely a law and it's exactly the phenomenon I'm alluding to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
all-fakes 6y ago
Responses have to be ranked, because some comments are much more valuable to the reader than others. Well-thought-out comments and spam lie at the extreme ends of the spectrum. I think there's merit to the idea of requiring a response for upvotes or downvotes, but how can you tell whether a response is "genuine"? It sounds like it'd devolve into people leaving vacuous replies just to clear that prerequisite.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  >comments are much more valuable to the reader than others This presupposes some kind of universal value function. >but how can you tell whether a response is "genuine"? It sounds like it'd devolve into people leaving vacuous replies just to clear that prerequisite This is like perfect is the enemy of good counterargument. I don't know and I'm not going to hypothesize right here right now where one misstep on my part gives credence to the idea that it's impossible. Here's what I'll say though about modern forums: they fixed a system that wasn't broken as far as discourse goes. When I was in high school the were forums where responses were ordered in time rather than by popularity. Those places were actual venues for discussion. Ranking only exists for monetization. If you don't agree with this then consider professional venues for discourse: academic journals. I have never browsed a journal or arxiv by the number of citations or the hindex or whatever.
  - 6y ago