3 ms·

In all fairness to the Author, people make up excuses for their behavior to justify it. He may actually be deeply conflicted but this is a defense mechanism.

prohobo 6y ago
That's what this feels like. There's a lot wrong with online social features... points at the global echo chambers, the depression and anxiety epidemic, the broken dating scene, and toxicity of online discourse I don't blame the people that made it, they're innovators that quite literally had no idea what they were doing - or the bottom line of the stakeholders got in the way. So, in my opinion the author did nothing wrong, and has no reason to apologize. However, it would be nice to start a conversation on how to fix these problems instead of pretending they're not there. HN made some great choices in its features that makes it a much better place to read and engage in comments than probably 99% of the rest of the internet. Those innovations include small things like not being able to downvote direct replies to your comments, having downvoting locked behind a reputation score, etc. It seems like these features were added intuitively, which is fine but risky. The author mentions that essentially, the problem with their feature is that it doesn't go far enough. I'd like to ask them how they've come to that conclusion. Do they just assume that? Did they do research? We really have no idea how to build new forms of communication. The only other ubiquitous forms, besides what we've evolved with, are writing and telephone communication. Both of those have their awkwardness, and therefore have established rules to make communication go more smoothly. Writing has had millennia to iron itself out, and we mostly got lucky with telephones but there definitely are still problems with it. The internet and all related technologies are a revolution in communication, yet no one has considered that maybe, just maybe, we need to really take care to do it properly? Where are the institutions and committees for research and creation of standards that make sure to foster at least healthier communication online?

prohobo 6y ago

That's what this feels like. There's a lot wrong with online social features... points at the global echo chambers, the depression and anxiety epidemic, the broken dating scene, and toxicity of online discourse I don't blame the people that made it, they're innovators that quite literally had no idea what they were doing - or the bottom line of the stakeholders got in the way. So, in my opinion the author did nothing wrong, and has no reason to apologize. However, it would be nice to start a conversation on how to fix these problems instead of pretending they're not there. HN made some great choices in its features that makes it a much better place to read and engage in comments than probably 99% of the rest of the internet. Those innovations include small things like not being able to downvote direct replies to your comments, having downvoting locked behind a reputation score, etc. It seems like these features were added intuitively, which is fine but risky. The author mentions that essentially, the problem with their feature is that it doesn't go far enough. I'd like to ask them how they've come to that conclusion. Do they just assume that? Did they do research? We really have no idea how to build new forms of communication. The only other ubiquitous forms, besides what we've evolved with, are writing and telephone communication. Both of those have their awkwardness, and therefore have established rules to make communication go more smoothly. Writing has had millennia to iron itself out, and we mostly got lucky with telephones but there definitely are still problems with it. The internet and all related technologies are a revolution in communication, yet no one has considered that maybe, just maybe, we need to really take care to do it properly? Where are the institutions and committees for research and creation of standards that make sure to foster at least healthier communication online?