3 ms·

I often upvote articles I find interesting enough I want to see a discussion of them on HN. To me it doesn't mean every word of an article is perfect and above

I often upvote articles I find interesting enough I want to see a discussion of them on HN. To me it doesn't mean every word of an article is perfect and above criticism, it just means it's IMO interesting and of substance enough to warrant discussion. In this case I took my time fully reading it before posting it, but not being a biotech person I posted this here also because I was interested in criticism of flaws I would have no chance of not overlooking. But just flagging it isn't that. It doesn't tell me this article is bad, it tells me too many people aren't acting in good faith, so that raises the question why that is. Trying to turn it around on others by speculating on what they might have done (i.e. why they upvoted it, if they read it), doesn't change what was definitely done (i.e. flagging it without any substantial criticism).

Sevaris 5y ago
Same here. I skimmed parts of the beginning, then upvoted because I found it interesting. I don't feel we should be squashing everything that might challenge our existing beliefs just because. Then HN would just be like every other awful social media site out there. If people have substantive problems with the article, they should articulate them as comments instead of blindly flagging something and hoping nobody ever has the opportunity to think about it.
kelnos 5y ago
Agreed on this. I read the article before looking at comments (now 8-9 hours after it was posted), and thought "hmm, ok, I'm skeptical, but these seem to be pretty strong arguments". I was pleased to come here to the comments to find strong counter-arguments, many of which are things I wouldn't have considered due to lack of expertise here. So I'm glad it got enough votes and stuck around long enough for serious discussion. (For the record, I still do believe the various lab-leak theories have legs, and should be discussed and investigated, even if this particular article ends up being unconvincing.)

Sevaris 5y ago

Same here. I skimmed parts of the beginning, then upvoted because I found it interesting. I don't feel we should be squashing everything that might challenge our existing beliefs just because. Then HN would just be like every other awful social media site out there. If people have substantive problems with the article, they should articulate them as comments instead of blindly flagging something and hoping nobody ever has the opportunity to think about it.

kelnos 5y ago

Agreed on this. I read the article before looking at comments (now 8-9 hours after it was posted), and thought "hmm, ok, I'm skeptical, but these seem to be pretty strong arguments". I was pleased to come here to the comments to find strong counter-arguments, many of which are things I wouldn't have considered due to lack of expertise here. So I'm glad it got enough votes and stuck around long enough for serious discussion. (For the record, I still do believe the various lab-leak theories have legs, and should be discussed and investigated, even if this particular article ends up being unconvincing.)