I think the author makes some valid points, but I don't think he makes a good argument for hn being "toxic". The headline comes off as hyperbole (but not, in fa

I think the author makes some valid points, but I don't think he makes a good argument for hn being "toxic". The headline comes off as hyperbole (but not, in fact, as "toxic"). In my experience the vast majority of negative comments on hn tend to be well founded, and mostly well intended. Contrast this with a happy photo sharing site that seems optimized for teaching body shaming and inducing self-harm, depression and suicidal tendencies... That's the kind of social media I think of as "toxic". Or as Webster's say in part: > 1: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation > toxic waste > a toxic radioactive gas > an insecticide highly toxic to birds > 3: extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful > toxic sarcasm