5 ms·

Hacker News and other relatively smaller forums are different. They are free social media networks that aren't optimized to maximize engagement, promote outrage

Hacker News and other relatively smaller forums are different. They are free social media networks that aren't optimized to maximize engagement, promote outrage, or instill a fear of missing out.

guerrilla 5y ago
They don't have as much of a network effect either.
sjtindell 5y ago
That stuff matters too but I think the size is what matters. HN stays clean because it stays small. Lots of posts are boring for the average person’s interests. I’ve seen the same thing on Reddit. Once you go above a certain size, a subreddit completely degrades.
spookthesunset 5y ago
They are also anonymous. I could be flaming somebody I know in real life but it does matter. Don’t ask don’t tell.
MikusR 5y ago
I have seen all 3 things on Hacker News. In addition to large threads about conspiracy theories, antivax and misinformation.
- openknot 5y ago
  They’re not completely absent, but design decisions by Hacker News make these three factors less visible. >maximize engagement It encourages engagement with upvotes and additional privileges when an account gets more points. However, the site’s design doesn’t maximize it. I don’t get push notifications to check the site, awards, or suggestions for other relevant articles in the comments. >promote outrage Outrage can be a factor that causes posts to rise, but deliberate policies avoid optimizing for it. Specifically, the avoidance of editing the submission title, unless the purpose is to make it less clickbait. >instill a fear of missing out. This is most subjective, but I get the sentiment that if someone posts an amazing project, there’s a good chance of constructive critique in the comments, or more information from the developer about how they made it. Other social media websites don’t have the depth of discussion (just photos of the best parts of their life, without talking about the challenges). This is relatively more of a cultural/user base observation versus an interface decision, however. For conspiracy theories, antivax, and misinformation, the alternative is heavier moderation. It looks like a judgement call by HN moderators to err on being less interventionist with user discussion. There are tradeoffs, but I think the benefits of free discussion outweigh exposure to misinformation, so long as one reads skeptically and critically.
mFixman 5y ago
All social networks with voting systems are optimised to maximise engagement and promote outrage. Just look at how every single country subreddit is a constant flamewar. HN _mostly_ prevents this by having strong and good moderation, but there's still a fair amount of negative metrics coming from it.

Hacker News and other relatively smaller forums are different. They are free social media networks that aren't optimized to maximize engagement, promote outrage, or instill a fear of missing out.

guerrilla 5y ago

They don't have as much of a network effect either.

sjtindell 5y ago

That stuff matters too but I think the size is what matters. HN stays clean because it stays small. Lots of posts are boring for the average person’s interests. I’ve seen the same thing on Reddit. Once you go above a certain size, a subreddit completely degrades.

spookthesunset 5y ago

They are also anonymous. I could be flaming somebody I know in real life but it does matter. Don’t ask don’t tell.

MikusR 5y ago

I have seen all 3 things on Hacker News. In addition to large threads about conspiracy theories, antivax and misinformation.

openknot 5y ago
They’re not completely absent, but design decisions by Hacker News make these three factors less visible. >maximize engagement It encourages engagement with upvotes and additional privileges when an account gets more points. However, the site’s design doesn’t maximize it. I don’t get push notifications to check the site, awards, or suggestions for other relevant articles in the comments. >promote outrage Outrage can be a factor that causes posts to rise, but deliberate policies avoid optimizing for it. Specifically, the avoidance of editing the submission title, unless the purpose is to make it less clickbait. >instill a fear of missing out. This is most subjective, but I get the sentiment that if someone posts an amazing project, there’s a good chance of constructive critique in the comments, or more information from the developer about how they made it. Other social media websites don’t have the depth of discussion (just photos of the best parts of their life, without talking about the challenges). This is relatively more of a cultural/user base observation versus an interface decision, however. For conspiracy theories, antivax, and misinformation, the alternative is heavier moderation. It looks like a judgement call by HN moderators to err on being less interventionist with user discussion. There are tradeoffs, but I think the benefits of free discussion outweigh exposure to misinformation, so long as one reads skeptically and critically.

mFixman 5y ago

All social networks with voting systems are optimised to maximise engagement and promote outrage. Just look at how every single country subreddit is a constant flamewar. HN _mostly_ prevents this by having strong and good moderation, but there's still a fair amount of negative metrics coming from it.