3 ms·

I disagree that “no one holds rights to what is or is not misinformation” - if we take that position to its end, then we must accept that all places for public

I disagree that “no one holds rights to what is or is not misinformation” - if we take that position to its end, then we must accept that all places for public discussion are subject to being overrun by trolls or vocal minority opinion. Strong communities need strong moderation lest they devolve into lesser communities. edit: My opinion is based somewhat on "Well-Kept Gardens Die by Pacifism"[0]. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...

lijogdfljk 5y ago
Agreed entirely. Honestly i wish they'd go further and do away with upvotes too. Though i have no idea if that's actually a good idea. I just loathe anything that takes the form of modern "forums" like Reddit, where upvotes seem to drive circle-jerk communities and everyone is at war due (in part perhaps) to the artificial conflict that "Like" scores seem to drive.
aww_dang 5y ago
Overrun by a minority is an interesting twist. I suppose it is fine, as long as HN is not overrun by the majority, homogeneous opinion. That would be a dull experience without dissent.
weberer 5y ago
Minority opinions are pushed down to the bottom of the page due to how the voting system works. There's no reason why they should also be completely hidden to anyone willing to scroll down. That's a fate that should only go to actual spam.
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
My opinion is based on the entire scope of documented and written human history. But if you think that one article by some internet person proves you right, then that's ever more the case that we should not do what you suggest.
- nanidin 5y ago
  Is this an actual response? This argument has no substantiation, just character attack. It's clear you didn't make any effort to read the article or consider its implications. It is clear you are not arguing or participating in good faith.

lijogdfljk 5y ago

Agreed entirely. Honestly i wish they'd go further and do away with upvotes too. Though i have no idea if that's actually a good idea. I just loathe anything that takes the form of modern "forums" like Reddit, where upvotes seem to drive circle-jerk communities and everyone is at war due (in part perhaps) to the artificial conflict that "Like" scores seem to drive.

aww_dang 5y ago

Overrun by a minority is an interesting twist. I suppose it is fine, as long as HN is not overrun by the majority, homogeneous opinion. That would be a dull experience without dissent.

weberer 5y ago

Minority opinions are pushed down to the bottom of the page due to how the voting system works. There's no reason why they should also be completely hidden to anyone willing to scroll down. That's a fate that should only go to actual spam.

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago

My opinion is based on the entire scope of documented and written human history. But if you think that one article by some internet person proves you right, then that's ever more the case that we should not do what you suggest.

nanidin 5y ago
Is this an actual response? This argument has no substantiation, just character attack. It's clear you didn't make any effort to read the article or consider its implications. It is clear you are not arguing or participating in good faith.