2 ms·

It’s always interesting to see the average account-creation date of commenters on politics-heavy subjects. I’m not sure what it means. It seems like perspecti

It’s always interesting to see the average account-creation date of commenters on politics-heavy subjects. I’m not sure what it means. It seems like perspectives can be correlated with account longevity, but I have no data on this. Perhaps newer accounts are more likely to comment on politics-related articles? Has this been studied in general or on HN specifically?

softwaredoug 6y ago
I would guess people regularly create sockpuppet/throwaway accounts to talk about politics. Too much reputational risk to discuss political topics in the open these days...
- popsuckit 6y ago
  Yes, exactly this. I'm not risking my main, years-old account being banned for getting passionate about a potentially political matter. And it's an opportunity to say what I really think, without being judged by HN's faux-politeness criteria. There's such a large intersection between tech and politics these days, in terms of their effects on each other, that the HN aversion to discussing politics just seems anachronistic and ill-judged.
  - jcims 6y ago
    I feel that HN is reasonably amenable to discussing direct relationships between technology, policy and society. Folks that were here when GDPR got off the ground likely remember quite a bit of the discussion was left untouched and i think we collectively did ok. However it doesn’t seem that humans have figured out how to effectively navigate our differences in the more ideological aspects of governance on a forum like this. Just think of how many times in a personal conversation you are happy to respond with nothing more than a ‘yes, but why?’ vs the same topic being discussed on HN or reddit? Or how much more information is exchanged in the ambience of that moment vs words on a page (and it’s still difficult). Online it’s nearly impossible and what you’re left with are echo chambers and vollies of insults. For my part I appreciate the wet blanket thrown on those types of conversations on HN. I just haven’t seen them yield fruit elsewhere and i appreciate the harbor.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    Is there really a risk of being banned as long as you make constructive posts?
    - krapp 6y ago
      Actually, just the opposite. History suggests you can usually be as toxic and controversial as you like and you'll be left alone as long as you also occasionally make constructive posts. The mods are looking for novelty and civility as signs of quality, so all you have to do is not be toxic about the same things often enough to bore them, and then sometimes post a deep dive into some niche cultural or technical subject.
- sJ646U9k6c6gME9 6y ago
  I regularly rotate my anonymous accounts on HN. A significant risk of reputational damage is attached to saying anything at all in a public forum. Who knows what else might get me canceled years or decades down the line? Better safe than sorry.
curiousllama 6y ago
Interesting - good point. Potential theories to explain all or part: (1) there’s more new accounts than old, typically (2) the lifespan of an account arguing politics on the internet is short - it’s too futile and frustrating (3) good-faith sock puppet accounts (don’t want a non-anonymous record of political beliefs) (4) bad faith sock puppet accounts (trolls, meanie-heads) (5) confirmation bias - once you see it, you notice all the new accounts, even if the effect is smaller than you perceive (6) new accounts are likely to be less HN-technical folks, as the site grows past its original audience, and they’re more likely to comment on non-tech posts in general (7) the Russians?

softwaredoug 6y ago

I would guess people regularly create sockpuppet/throwaway accounts to talk about politics. Too much reputational risk to discuss political topics in the open these days...

popsuckit 6y ago
Yes, exactly this. I'm not risking my main, years-old account being banned for getting passionate about a potentially political matter. And it's an opportunity to say what I really think, without being judged by HN's faux-politeness criteria. There's such a large intersection between tech and politics these days, in terms of their effects on each other, that the HN aversion to discussing politics just seems anachronistic and ill-judged.
- jcims 6y ago
  I feel that HN is reasonably amenable to discussing direct relationships between technology, policy and society. Folks that were here when GDPR got off the ground likely remember quite a bit of the discussion was left untouched and i think we collectively did ok. However it doesn’t seem that humans have figured out how to effectively navigate our differences in the more ideological aspects of governance on a forum like this. Just think of how many times in a personal conversation you are happy to respond with nothing more than a ‘yes, but why?’ vs the same topic being discussed on HN or reddit? Or how much more information is exchanged in the ambience of that moment vs words on a page (and it’s still difficult). Online it’s nearly impossible and what you’re left with are echo chambers and vollies of insults. For my part I appreciate the wet blanket thrown on those types of conversations on HN. I just haven’t seen them yield fruit elsewhere and i appreciate the harbor.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  Is there really a risk of being banned as long as you make constructive posts?
  - krapp 6y ago
    Actually, just the opposite. History suggests you can usually be as toxic and controversial as you like and you'll be left alone as long as you also occasionally make constructive posts. The mods are looking for novelty and civility as signs of quality, so all you have to do is not be toxic about the same things often enough to bore them, and then sometimes post a deep dive into some niche cultural or technical subject.
sJ646U9k6c6gME9 6y ago
I regularly rotate my anonymous accounts on HN. A significant risk of reputational damage is attached to saying anything at all in a public forum. Who knows what else might get me canceled years or decades down the line? Better safe than sorry.

curiousllama 6y ago

Interesting - good point. Potential theories to explain all or part: (1) there’s more new accounts than old, typically (2) the lifespan of an account arguing politics on the internet is short - it’s too futile and frustrating (3) good-faith sock puppet accounts (don’t want a non-anonymous record of political beliefs) (4) bad faith sock puppet accounts (trolls, meanie-heads) (5) confirmation bias - once you see it, you notice all the new accounts, even if the effect is smaller than you perceive (6) new accounts are likely to be less HN-technical folks, as the site grows past its original audience, and they’re more likely to comment on non-tech posts in general (7) the Russians?