4 ms·
The guy above was arguing the pro-authoritarian slant would emerge first simple because HN is so big, that some people must have that slant, and those are the p
by true_religion 6y ago
The guy above was arguing the pro-authoritarian slant would emerge first simple because HN is so big, that some people must have that slant, and those are the people who will react first.
After that, will be a wave of complaints about the first responders (e.g. in this case he pro-authoritarians). This wave gets upvoted heavily to sit at the top.
So when you and I arrive 9 hours after the drama, we'll see the top X comments either complaining about a slant that is now down-voted, or up-voted comments being reflective of the true biases of HN.
That's basically what happened here.... it's not that the pro-authoritarian comments are naturally shallow, is that they were merely the first comments posted in the first seconds after the article was posted, and are just reflexive since no one reads an article in seconds. If we post an article with a pro-authoritarian title, we'll get a wave of reflexive anti-authoritarian comments too.
- dang 6y agoExactly!
- jfengel 6y agoShouldn't there be an equal contrarian dynamic among anti-authoritarians? I suppose there is, and it's segregated by thread. Some topics attract first responses from libertarian anti-authority types, such as crypto and intellectual property. But even so there's a kind of overlap. It's anti-authority when it comes to obligations, and pro-authority when it's about property. Or more generally, anti-authority about us, pro-authority about them. That's not so much "contrarian" as simply "selfish", but it does have the "pent up energy" that dang mentioned. And yeah, I do think you see a lot more selfishness on HN than in the past.