5 ms·

The irony of posting this as a comment on an online message board is tangible.

faitswulff 6y ago
Ah, but comments on well moderated news aggregators is a different story altogether than sites that just happen to have comment forms.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Yes, that's right. We're different. It's everyone else that's the problem. /s
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    Yes. Unironically. Without the s. Seriously. Very few news orgs devote the resources needed to curate messages for relevance and filter trolls and flames. Furthermore, places want to make money on subscribers so potentially have an incentive not to remove postsade by subscribers (no substance behind that theory). Nytimes is the only news site I see that doesn't have absolute trash for dialogue quality.
    - monoideism 6y ago
      > Nytimes is the only news site I see that doesn't have absolute trash for dialogue quality. Oh, it has plenty of trash comments, they're just expressed in a manner acceptable to the urban elite. All the comments from hoi polloi are filtered.
      - unethical_ban 6y ago
        >all the comments I disagree with are expressed with cogency and respect, and those that show disrespect or a lack of RTFA are deleted
    - darkerside 6y ago
      Credit to the mods here. They have a vision for a culture, and they've done a good job at it. It doesn't mean it's the only way to have a conversation. I recognize this sentiment is going to be unpopular here. There are probably other places that would feel the opposite, that HN is a groupthink SV bubble with any diversity just a riff on that theme. I like it here, but I swear some people here think they have a monopoly on truth.
everdrive 6y ago
Not really; it's ideal. Comment sections on news sources are mostly a dumpster fire. Individual message boards, small, and well regulated can be a wonderful gift. Commenting away from the primary publication, but about the primary publication seems ideal.
- darkerside 6y ago
  There's no reason these are mutually exclusive. We can be happy that we have our own little forum for discussion while still feeling others should have the right to discuss content where it is. Alternative isn't better than mainstream, it's just different.
- barbacoa 6y ago
  >Comment sections on news sources are mostly a dumpster fire Except for substack. In an interesting twist the comment sections on substack are thoughtful and polite with the authors chiming in -- at least in my experience. Don't know how to explain that compared to most sites. Maybe is because only paid subscribers are allowed to comment.
  - abhiminator 6y ago
    Just give it some time. Once the user base swells up I'm sure the site will witness a general decline in quality, unless the moderation tools catch up. This is something I've seen with countless forums and message boards over the years, i.e. Quora, Yahoo Answers, etc.
    - phlakaton 6y ago
      Add The Athletic, a subscription service, to the pile. Early adopters were enthusiastic and polite in the comments section. Even just one year in, the tenor had changed significantly.
    - benlumen 6y ago
      So true. I was thinking about Clubhouse recently and realized there are two basic forces that conspire against successful new platforms: 1) Going mainstream / mass appeal means the lowest common denominator drops, whether that's content or quality of conversation 2) Commercialization incentivizes the wrong things - see Twitter and how its been optimised for "engagement" above all else (not quality of content, or user happiness etc). Interesting things are happening at Clubhouse but surely they know how this will go. I think successful new platforms that want to maintain their integrity should be looking at paid membership. Substack might be OK because of that.
Waterluvian 6y ago
I think this is exactly the model we should have. I don't want 50 different accounts and comment sections. I want to take articles I'm interested in and bring them to the town square or pub to talk about. This is that.
- Nursie 6y ago
  That's basically what fark.com is (was? is it still as popular?). Obviously with an eye on stupid stuff and snark.
thereare5lights 6y ago
HN has heavy moderation. It's not the same.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Hacker News specializes in being an online message board, so they actually have the moderation staff to manage the platform they're running. A news site running a comments section is sort of like a restaurant deciding they should also sell groceries. Can it work? Maybe - but more likely most people didn't want to pick up groceries at your restaurant, while people looking to steal food know that it's unattended most of the time, so you have a massive shrink rate problem. That doesn't mean groceries are a bad idea, it means it's something people need to specialize into.
- rapnie 6y ago
  The HN moderation is (AFAIK still) a 1-2 man show, with @dang doing fantastic work as a moderator, but also much helped with the upvote/downvote, flag and a whole bunch of algorithms.
we_the_elite 6y ago
We're between good people here, not like the uneducated masses who comment on online news.

Ah, but comments on well moderated news aggregators is a different story altogether than sites that just happen to have comment forms.

darkerside 6y ago
Yes, that's right. We're different. It's everyone else that's the problem. /s
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Yes. Unironically. Without the s. Seriously. Very few news orgs devote the resources needed to curate messages for relevance and filter trolls and flames. Furthermore, places want to make money on subscribers so potentially have an incentive not to remove postsade by subscribers (no substance behind that theory). Nytimes is the only news site I see that doesn't have absolute trash for dialogue quality.
  - monoideism 6y ago
    > Nytimes is the only news site I see that doesn't have absolute trash for dialogue quality. Oh, it has plenty of trash comments, they're just expressed in a manner acceptable to the urban elite. All the comments from hoi polloi are filtered.
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      >all the comments I disagree with are expressed with cogency and respect, and those that show disrespect or a lack of RTFA are deleted
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Credit to the mods here. They have a vision for a culture, and they've done a good job at it. It doesn't mean it's the only way to have a conversation. I recognize this sentiment is going to be unpopular here. There are probably other places that would feel the opposite, that HN is a groupthink SV bubble with any diversity just a riff on that theme. I like it here, but I swear some people here think they have a monopoly on truth.

everdrive 6y ago

Not really; it's ideal. Comment sections on news sources are mostly a dumpster fire. Individual message boards, small, and well regulated can be a wonderful gift. Commenting away from the primary publication, but about the primary publication seems ideal.

darkerside 6y ago
There's no reason these are mutually exclusive. We can be happy that we have our own little forum for discussion while still feeling others should have the right to discuss content where it is. Alternative isn't better than mainstream, it's just different.
barbacoa 6y ago
>Comment sections on news sources are mostly a dumpster fire Except for substack. In an interesting twist the comment sections on substack are thoughtful and polite with the authors chiming in -- at least in my experience. Don't know how to explain that compared to most sites. Maybe is because only paid subscribers are allowed to comment.
- abhiminator 6y ago
  Just give it some time. Once the user base swells up I'm sure the site will witness a general decline in quality, unless the moderation tools catch up. This is something I've seen with countless forums and message boards over the years, i.e. Quora, Yahoo Answers, etc.
  - phlakaton 6y ago
    Add The Athletic, a subscription service, to the pile. Early adopters were enthusiastic and polite in the comments section. Even just one year in, the tenor had changed significantly.
  - benlumen 6y ago
    So true. I was thinking about Clubhouse recently and realized there are two basic forces that conspire against successful new platforms: 1) Going mainstream / mass appeal means the lowest common denominator drops, whether that's content or quality of conversation 2) Commercialization incentivizes the wrong things - see Twitter and how its been optimised for "engagement" above all else (not quality of content, or user happiness etc). Interesting things are happening at Clubhouse but surely they know how this will go. I think successful new platforms that want to maintain their integrity should be looking at paid membership. Substack might be OK because of that.

Waterluvian 6y ago

I think this is exactly the model we should have. I don't want 50 different accounts and comment sections. I want to take articles I'm interested in and bring them to the town square or pub to talk about. This is that.

Nursie 6y ago
That's basically what fark.com is (was? is it still as popular?). Obviously with an eye on stupid stuff and snark.

thereare5lights 6y ago

HN has heavy moderation. It's not the same.

kmeisthax 6y ago

Hacker News specializes in being an online message board, so they actually have the moderation staff to manage the platform they're running. A news site running a comments section is sort of like a restaurant deciding they should also sell groceries. Can it work? Maybe - but more likely most people didn't want to pick up groceries at your restaurant, while people looking to steal food know that it's unattended most of the time, so you have a massive shrink rate problem. That doesn't mean groceries are a bad idea, it means it's something people need to specialize into.

rapnie 6y ago
The HN moderation is (AFAIK still) a 1-2 man show, with @dang doing fantastic work as a moderator, but also much helped with the upvote/downvote, flag and a whole bunch of algorithms.

we_the_elite 6y ago

We're between good people here, not like the uneducated masses who comment on online news.