5 ms·

I would like to argue that if you don’t consider this a place hostile, you might only feel that way because you are the audience that this site caters to. This

I would like to argue that if you don’t consider this a place hostile, you might only feel that way because you are the audience that this site caters to. This is the sort of cognizant bubble-popping that is important to recognize. (To be clear: I also think I have high quality discussions on HN… but only for certain subjects. Anyone who, for example, advocates for wealth taxes or wealth redistribution or any other positions that wealthy people and people interested in accumulating wealth don’t like often are not given the time of day to intelligently talk about their positions.)

throwaway894345 5y ago
I mean, it's less civil than real-world dialog, but it's a lot more civil than virtually any place else on the Internet. But it's not that "I'm the audience that this site caters to": 1. my opinions (with respect to technology or politics) have remained the same but their popularity with this site has ebbed and flowed, but relative civility hasn't fluctuated much 2. I can disagree with and be disagreed with civily here, while on Twitter disagreement is almost invariably hostile (yes, you can curate to a small degree) 3. there are people who agree with me on Twitter and Reddit who arrive by the worst conclusions and who are hostile toward people with whom I disagree I suspect many of the people who hate HN are those who can't disagree civily--who feel like opinions they dislike must be censored or censured.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  One of the structures of HN is also that unpopular opinions are also heavily downvoted which obscures them, both visually and algorithmically. (And then people heavily downvoted I see can often complain of rate-limiting.)This is not about civility but about whether or not the environment is structurally hostile to certain philosophical discussions, which I understand it might be if one’s opinion is, say, that billionaires are unethical. (I don’t believe this personally but I know I will never get an intellectual, good faith discussion on the subject here.)
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    As previously mentioned, I've argued the unpopular side of many arguments, and I've found HN to be eminently civil as far as Internet forums go. However, my standard is "civility" or "good faith" and not "people agree with me". I agree, however, that many of HN's critics share the latter standard (and thus are happier on far more toxic websites), but I think it's an awful standard if it can be called a standard at all. > This is not about civility but about whether or not the environment is structurally hostile to certain philosophical discussions It's not hostile to certain philosophical discussions. We've had many robust political and technological debates (including whether the wealthiest should pay more tax and so on), but that doesn't mean the unpopular view carries the day (indeed, my view point on this is probably the unpopular one on this forum, though not by very much). Now speaking to your concern about which viewpoints get more upvotes, in my experience as a frequent dissenter and devil's advocate, I've found that you can do a lot more on this site to mitigate the unpopularity of your opinions by demonstrating good faith, showing that you understand counterarguments, and communicating clearly. If you make everything hostile and tribal, you're going to have a bad time, which I think is a feature of this site (and which is also very likely the motivation behind so many of the HN=bad types of comments).

throwaway894345 5y ago

I mean, it's less civil than real-world dialog, but it's a lot more civil than virtually any place else on the Internet. But it's not that "I'm the audience that this site caters to": 1. my opinions (with respect to technology or politics) have remained the same but their popularity with this site has ebbed and flowed, but relative civility hasn't fluctuated much 2. I can disagree with and be disagreed with civily here, while on Twitter disagreement is almost invariably hostile (yes, you can curate to a small degree) 3. there are people who agree with me on Twitter and Reddit who arrive by the worst conclusions and who are hostile toward people with whom I disagree I suspect many of the people who hate HN are those who can't disagree civily--who feel like opinions they dislike must be censored or censured.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
One of the structures of HN is also that unpopular opinions are also heavily downvoted which obscures them, both visually and algorithmically. (And then people heavily downvoted I see can often complain of rate-limiting.)This is not about civility but about whether or not the environment is structurally hostile to certain philosophical discussions, which I understand it might be if one’s opinion is, say, that billionaires are unethical. (I don’t believe this personally but I know I will never get an intellectual, good faith discussion on the subject here.)
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  As previously mentioned, I've argued the unpopular side of many arguments, and I've found HN to be eminently civil as far as Internet forums go. However, my standard is "civility" or "good faith" and not "people agree with me". I agree, however, that many of HN's critics share the latter standard (and thus are happier on far more toxic websites), but I think it's an awful standard if it can be called a standard at all. > This is not about civility but about whether or not the environment is structurally hostile to certain philosophical discussions It's not hostile to certain philosophical discussions. We've had many robust political and technological debates (including whether the wealthiest should pay more tax and so on), but that doesn't mean the unpopular view carries the day (indeed, my view point on this is probably the unpopular one on this forum, though not by very much). Now speaking to your concern about which viewpoints get more upvotes, in my experience as a frequent dissenter and devil's advocate, I've found that you can do a lot more on this site to mitigate the unpopularity of your opinions by demonstrating good faith, showing that you understand counterarguments, and communicating clearly. If you make everything hostile and tribal, you're going to have a bad time, which I think is a feature of this site (and which is also very likely the motivation behind so many of the HN=bad types of comments).