4 ms·

I think the 'hivemind' stuff is a bit overstated, but there are a few areas where, given the topic, you have a high chance of being downvoted even if you provid

I think the 'hivemind' stuff is a bit overstated, but there are a few areas where, given the topic, you have a high chance of being downvoted even if you provide a rational, non-personal, non-offensive, and careful opinion. This is just what I've witnessed based on the article-type that I click on and observe the commentariat (I'm sure there are many other topics): - If the article is about Bitcoin or crypto and there are a large number of people talking about externalities. If someone says something that's perceived as being not in line, it's getting heavily downvoted. - If the article is about the stock market and there are a large number of people who are recommending index fund dollar-cost averaging. Someone says they picked stocks. Bye-bye, comment font contrast against the background. Greyed. Those grey comments are probably mine in this example. - If the article is about a recent event around a cancellation such as a firing or a conversation around misinformation, anything perceived as questioning that (such as using the word censorship in the comment) has a near-guarantee of downvotes. There is no way to ever come to the defense of someone who said something that has been deemed misinformation, a conspiracy theory, or such, without being associated with the cancelled. It's almost dangerous to even opine at this point if you have feelings around freedom of speech. Note: I'm not talking about the opinion itself, but the right to air it, and coming to defense of that. It's poorly received. - Criticisms of Google, curiously, and I've seen Facebook as well (although I think Facebook fell out of favor in the last few years). I have a theory about many employees coming to the defense of their employer out of loyalty. There are probably many other examples of dangerous topics that provoke the group. I think there is something in people's mind that lets them justify this as follows: "If you question the popular wisdom here, when you have a group saying A, and you say B, you must be a troll out to provoke people."

unanswered 5y ago
> I think there is something in people's mind that lets them justify this as follows: > "If you question the popular wisdom here, when you have a group saying A, and you say B, you must be a troll out to provoke people." The HN moderation team holds to this "principle" and has thereby essentially developed a community around it. That is, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  I don't think the moderation team sought out to create a monoculture- is that what you are suggesting? Downvotes and upvotes for comments for many people are viewed as ways to reward/punish well-constructed/poorly constructed argumentation. I'm sure originally it was a way to conceive of a popularity rating for an article/post. Something with tons of upvotes is popular.
  - unanswered 5y ago
    I think I'm offering this as an alternative to the theory that a monoculture was intentionally created, which is one which the mod team disclaims as I understand it. But if every individual moderation decision is made on the basis of "disagreeing with the 'accepted' answer is trolling" or something like that, and the HN community is [self-]selected on that basis, then I think that's an equally good or better explanation for what I actually observe in comment sections.
    - mancerayder 5y ago
      There's something to be said that the monoculture path or end result - if that's what we think is the trend - is more a function more broadly of either technology or some cultural norm. Because it's so incredibly widespread outside of HN, the comment voting behavior here seems to me more like a symptom of a broader problem than a design artifact.
kingsuper20 5y ago
I simply upvote anything that's gray.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  I often do that, even if I completely disagree, if I feel like someone was rational and reasonable in their comment. I like to think comment vote should be around quality of argument, not the Correct Opinion / Side.

unanswered 5y ago

> I think there is something in people's mind that lets them justify this as follows: > "If you question the popular wisdom here, when you have a group saying A, and you say B, you must be a troll out to provoke people." The HN moderation team holds to this "principle" and has thereby essentially developed a community around it. That is, this isn't a bug, it's a feature.

mancerayder 5y ago
I don't think the moderation team sought out to create a monoculture- is that what you are suggesting? Downvotes and upvotes for comments for many people are viewed as ways to reward/punish well-constructed/poorly constructed argumentation. I'm sure originally it was a way to conceive of a popularity rating for an article/post. Something with tons of upvotes is popular.
- unanswered 5y ago
  I think I'm offering this as an alternative to the theory that a monoculture was intentionally created, which is one which the mod team disclaims as I understand it. But if every individual moderation decision is made on the basis of "disagreeing with the 'accepted' answer is trolling" or something like that, and the HN community is [self-]selected on that basis, then I think that's an equally good or better explanation for what I actually observe in comment sections.
  - mancerayder 5y ago
    There's something to be said that the monoculture path or end result - if that's what we think is the trend - is more a function more broadly of either technology or some cultural norm. Because it's so incredibly widespread outside of HN, the comment voting behavior here seems to me more like a symptom of a broader problem than a design artifact.

kingsuper20 5y ago

I simply upvote anything that's gray.

mancerayder 5y ago
I often do that, even if I completely disagree, if I feel like someone was rational and reasonable in their comment. I like to think comment vote should be around quality of argument, not the Correct Opinion / Side.