3 ms·

"I disagree" and "detracts from the conversation" have a lot of overlap. A (subjectively) very wrong take on a subject distracts from where you think the conver

"I disagree" and "detracts from the conversation" have a lot of overlap. A (subjectively) very wrong take on a subject distracts from where you think the conversation should be heading. On Reddit I see many comments, convincingly written, that are (imo) flatly wrong. These comments are potentially very harmful because they're persuading others of a falsehood. Am I supposed to upvote or downvote? (what I actually tend to do is not visit the site)

matheusmoreira 5y ago
How do you know you aren't the one who's wrong?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Provably incorrect comments get upvoted on Reddit all the time. Happens a lot on subs about X where the post involves Y, and somebody says something very authoritatively about Y that is just wrong.
- sellyme 5y ago
  Usually when I find someone posting something I believe is completely false online, I double-check my own belief with reputable sources to make sure I'm not mistaken or out of date. In the 80-90% of cases where I don't find a good argument contrary to my prior understanding, I check the post history of the user in question to see if they're some kind of subject matter expert that might have a deeper knowledge of the topic than the journalists writing articles for a general audience. Unfortunately that's rarely the case. More often three of their last four comments contain racial slurs and misspellings of two-letter words, which doesn't instill a huge amount of confidence that they know what they're talking about.
lolinder 5y ago
On HN, if a comment is well-written and appears to be made in good faith but is (in my opinion) wrong, I neither upvote nor downvote, I reply. Downvoting a good-faith comment because you disagree with it does no one any favors. It creates a sense of persecution among those who disagree with you, while not actually providing any counter-argument for the benefit of the undecided. Leave the vote counts alone, make your own convincing argument.
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  > On HN, if a comment is well-written and appears to be made in good faith but is (in my opinion) wrong, I neither upvote nor downvote, I reply. And this is evil being done as good men stay silent. There might indeed be many that are not so petulant that they would downvote an otherwise non rule-breaking comment they disagree with, but few of them will find themselves upvoting something they disagree with either, and there will still be some that downvote it. Thus, an unpopular opinion that otherwise contributes will eventually be downvoted for not receiving enough upvotes.
  - nohuck13 5y ago
    It's not a given that HN always orders comments by (upvotes - downvotes).
paulddraper 5y ago
> subjectively > falsehood Subjectivity and truthiness are opposed. * If the question is "who is the current world chess champion" the answer is Magnus Carlson. * If the question is "who is the greatest chess player of all time," there are a number of contradictory opinions. "Bobby Fischer" is a low-quality answer. "Bobby Fischer because XYZ" is a high-quality answer, even if I don't agree.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

How do you know you aren't the one who's wrong?

jaywalk 5y ago
Provably incorrect comments get upvoted on Reddit all the time. Happens a lot on subs about X where the post involves Y, and somebody says something very authoritatively about Y that is just wrong.
sellyme 5y ago
Usually when I find someone posting something I believe is completely false online, I double-check my own belief with reputable sources to make sure I'm not mistaken or out of date. In the 80-90% of cases where I don't find a good argument contrary to my prior understanding, I check the post history of the user in question to see if they're some kind of subject matter expert that might have a deeper knowledge of the topic than the journalists writing articles for a general audience. Unfortunately that's rarely the case. More often three of their last four comments contain racial slurs and misspellings of two-letter words, which doesn't instill a huge amount of confidence that they know what they're talking about.

lolinder 5y ago

On HN, if a comment is well-written and appears to be made in good faith but is (in my opinion) wrong, I neither upvote nor downvote, I reply. Downvoting a good-faith comment because you disagree with it does no one any favors. It creates a sense of persecution among those who disagree with you, while not actually providing any counter-argument for the benefit of the undecided. Leave the vote counts alone, make your own convincing argument.

Blikkentrekker 5y ago
> On HN, if a comment is well-written and appears to be made in good faith but is (in my opinion) wrong, I neither upvote nor downvote, I reply. And this is evil being done as good men stay silent. There might indeed be many that are not so petulant that they would downvote an otherwise non rule-breaking comment they disagree with, but few of them will find themselves upvoting something they disagree with either, and there will still be some that downvote it. Thus, an unpopular opinion that otherwise contributes will eventually be downvoted for not receiving enough upvotes.
- nohuck13 5y ago
  It's not a given that HN always orders comments by (upvotes - downvotes).

paulddraper 5y ago

> subjectively > falsehood Subjectivity and truthiness are opposed. * If the question is "who is the current world chess champion" the answer is Magnus Carlson. * If the question is "who is the greatest chess player of all time," there are a number of contradictory opinions. "Bobby Fischer" is a low-quality answer. "Bobby Fischer because XYZ" is a high-quality answer, even if I don't agree.