4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoThere'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.