9 ms·

I'm not a sophisticated sociologist or anything by any means but I'd wager that social media originated and continues to drive the trend in popularism. The "upv

• benlumen 6y ago
  I agree - the system gamifies conversation and literally rewards saying the popular thing with points. That's great for funny comments on memes, but it's not ideal for politics. Obviously, we're doing it here right now, which brings me onto a second point - I have found that Hacker News is frequented by similar-minded people who will take my ideas in good faith, so I take time to post here. But I no longer bother with other platforms that would downvote me for saying the same thing. And so, we're becoming inexperienced with ideas we disagree with.
  • newen 6y ago
    Hacker News has a very specific techno-libertarian Silicon Valley type outlook and you get downvoted pretty quickly when you express other types of views, especially in politics and controversial topics.
    • _jal 6y ago
      If this is the sort of thing you like, you'll like it here. Choose your bubble.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • Bjartr 6y ago
      I find that if such opinions are communicated civilly, they are much, much less likely to be downvoted. It's not like no one here will knee jerk downvote, but most often I see aggressive posts downvoted much more consistently than "merely" controversial ones
      • mellosouls 6y ago
        I agree that uncivil comments are down-voted more often, but there is clear "I don't agree with you even though you've made your point intelligently, so I will see if I can make it disappear" which is really unfortunate and not conducive to civil discourse. Perhaps less than other platforms but certainly a thing - often with no counter comment to explain. All seems a bit small-minded.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
      • bluGill 6y ago
        If you are civil you get less down votes, but some opinions will automatically get you a few down votes no matter how insightful and well worded.
      • skissane 6y ago
        Some people downvote because a silent downvote is risk-free, a response isn't. Especially on a controversial topic, why respond and run the risk of being downvoted by those who disagree with you when you can just downvote and move on?
    • andrepd 6y ago
      Case in point, this very comment!
      • mellosouls 6y ago
        I can't help wondering if some of the down-voting in this case is intended as ironic.
        • Smithalicious 6y ago
          As the old adage goes, "it's still shitposting even if you're being ironic".
        • prepend 6y ago
          Perhaps my longest internet commenting rule is “downvote people complaining about downvotes”
          • mellosouls 6y ago
            Its sometimes a fair complaint (if against HN guidelines) in an environment like this where you hope for a little bit more thought in when to down-vote.
            • prepend 6y ago
              Perhaps. But always off topic and almost always boring. When I think I’m unfairly downvoted, I just try to reply with more detail and accounting for more possible interpretations. Or I move on.
      • malandrew 6y ago
        I downvoted it because it's anecdotal and furthermore not accurate based on my own anecdotal experience. i.e. I'm using my downvote for my anecdotal experience to cancel their anecdotal experience. Likewise I expect downvotes on this comment for being anecdotal as well (except in the circumstance that some of the additional commentary below garners upvotes) I'm probably one of the people that would be categorized as a techno-libertarian (even though I don't live in SV), but I get downvotes all the time as well. This community is a lot more diverse than just the techno-libertarian crowd. There's no lack of people in opposition to the techno-libertarianism as well downvoting the techno-libertarian comments and upvoting those in opposition to the techno-libertarian comments. Basically I downvoted this comment for presenting the situation as one where only their views are getting downvoted excessively because they believe themselves to be in the minority when my experience clearly falsifies the assumption that it's only non-techno-libertarian comments being downvoted. Furthermore, HNers tend to downvote comments that speculate on why things are being downvoted. The truth is that you have absolutely zero knowledge into why a comment was downvoted unless someone replies to say they downvoted and explains exactly why they did so like I just did. Anything other than that is pure baseless speculation and that doesn't get you very far in a community that prefers statements based on evidence. Also, complaining about downvotes is known to get you downvoted because it's generally been observed to contribute negatively to the quality of discussion. You shouldn't complain about downvotes and instead you should add a comment where you argue your point better and try to gain karma with a new better comment than complaining about downvotes on a previous one that didn't succeed.
    • iagovar 6y ago
      I'm a utilitarian social democrat and I don't think I ever been downvoted because of that, despite living in a world completely different from SV. I'm not american, I'm not rich, and some of the problems that SV like to focus at seem childish and/or absurd to me, but here I am, still thinking that HN is probably one of the best communities.
  • pjc50 6y ago
    I'm very experienced with the opposing views .. and I find it increasingly difficult to assume that they're both held in good faith and also willing to take my views as held in good faith. There's a "iterated prisoner's dilemma" thing going on, where the side that plays "defect" all the time has got the upper hand.
    • qqn 6y ago
      Yes to the "defect" thought. Learning about Karpman's triangle[0] helped me understand this. In conflict, people flit between three identities: the villain who tries to force their way, the hero who tries to save the situation, and the victim who accepts loss and points out their difficulties. And everyone's trying to be the victim because that's who ultimately gets their way, through manipulating the "don't kick someone when they're down" mentality. Fascinating stuff, and now that I've seen it I just can't unsee it almost everywhere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
      • qqn 6y ago
        I should add that the tendency of adopting the hero role ("let bygones be bygones, but we need to get this done") isn't ideal since it leaves a power imbalance in its wake. A more effective response lies in Nonviolent Communication,[0] so saying, "When you say this I feel this because I value this. Would you be willing to do this?" This way emotions are managed and both parties begin exiting the dialogue understanding each other, and on equal footing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
        • watwut 6y ago
          And then I tell you that I am not responsible for your feelings, you are. Which is very common thing to say these days. Or I say you that you are oversensitive and emotional. I agree that "hero" in original framing basically favors status quo.
          • 6y ago
  • mrfusion 6y ago
    I really liked slashdots system. It seemed to work well too.
• andrepd 6y ago
  Of course. What purpose does the downvote button serve? If the post is breaking the rules, you should report/flag it. If its not, you shouldn't downvote.
  • elliekelly 6y ago
    What about when a post isn’t breaking the rules but is factually incorrect? If I comment that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the moon I would expect that comment to be filtered out by the community rather than something to bother the mods about.
    • goalieca 6y ago
      I've seen downvotes that are applied to factually correct information but that goes against the herd. A simple rebuttal would suffice as we tend to do in the technical stories. Political stories on this site are insufferable.
      • malandrew 6y ago
        Regardless of where you stand on a situation, advocacy is unavoidable in political stories. You can be 100% factually correct, but still commit sins of advocacy and partisanship like omitting factual information or misrepresenting factual information. About the only comments that remain factually accurate without committing sins of advocacy in political stories are those that acknowledge that the issue is complicated, that there are many sides and that there isn't anything conclusive. The more certain/convicted about an issue a commenter comes, the more likely they are going to get downvoted in political stories. My observation is that those comments that practice the principle of charity with their interlocutors are those that are more likely to be upvoted. How you say something is more important than what you're saying if you're trying to reach common understanding in earnest. Technical stories generally don't have positions and advocacy except advocacy in favor of intellectual curiosity.
      • MisterBastahrd 6y ago
        There's data that is factually correct but contextually useless in a vacuum to the point of being harmful when cited for advocacy reasons. It's not difficult to figure out when people cite that data and why.
• edanm 6y ago
  I don't know. People were sharing ridiculous and untrue stories via email, via sms, etc. Is it the "buttons" or the "gamification" that is driving the change in scale? Or is it just that there are more people online, with easier access to sharing content, and perhaps also - easier access to creating content? I really don't know the answer to this, but it seems like everyone always blames social media, whereas I think the problem is basically a people-problem, not a tech-problem - give more people a voice, and you might not like what you hear.
  • coffeefirst 6y ago
    Correct. If you signup for newsletters or read the news on their websites, or open their in-house app, the GP comment is wrong, there are lot's of newsrooms doing solid work, and what the article is circling is the burden of proof for stating "this official lied" as a fact. If you're looking at social media newsfeeds all day, the algorithm is going to emphasize the things people are passionate about sharing. The people you follow become your front-page editor. In the end, GP's perception is more about what he's reading and how he's receiving it than what real reporters do every day.
• malandrew 6y ago
  I still want downvotes to exist, but I'm especially interested in being able to identify comments that oscillate in the sense that they get many competing votes. I have a fair amount of karma on HN, but in the past few years that karma plateaued and I find myself getting as many upvotes as I did before, but now more downvotes. I'm sure that I'm not the only one that has experienced seeing their comments oscillate between black and grey.
• p1necone 6y ago
  Without the downvote HN would descend into flame war bullshit pretty quickly (imo). Things that don't outright break the rules can still be low effort and subtly hostile. Most heavily downvoted posts I see on here tend to be people transparently arguing in bad faith, or being unnecessarily rude in ways that aren't quite obvious enough to attract proper moderation. Sure sometimes it's just opinions that most people disagree with, but overall I think the downvote button is a positive force (and the comments are still there, you can judge for yourself if they were worth it). (If you want to see all the terrible comments that get posted, turn on the showdead option on your user profile. Otherwise you get an unrealistically sunny view of the quality of discourse here).