4 ms·

I see a lot of comments advocating for more regulation, more policies, more government control, less individual freedom. Many that argue the other way are down

by rascul 4y ago

I see a lot of comments advocating for more regulation, more policies, more government control, less individual freedom. Many that argue the other way are down voted.

bigyikes 4y ago
Do you disagree with those comments? I ask because Dang often links to a collection of threads where people make this type claim[1]. If we’re to believe him, the bias you’re perceiving may not actually exist, and may actually be a reflection of your own personal biases. Not sure whether you relate to that, but I definitely could. Since learning of this, I actually view Hacker News as roughly politically neutral. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922311
- rascul 4y ago
  It's just what I (remember) seeing. My own views and biases may certainly have an effect on that. Note that the comments Dang linked to are making claims that HN is this or HN is that. I only claim that I saw things. It's a difference, but possibly a small difference, I guess.
Apocryphon 4y ago
Times have changed greatly since the Great Recession. Individuals in general are more materially dispossessed than they were in the end of history '90s. Even well-paid hackers in San Francisco or Seattle can see poverty all around them. Meanwhile, corporate wealth and power have risen to the stuff of cyberpunk fantasies. Less luxury, nowadays, to be an absolutist individualist. Not to mention, libertarianism as a American political ideology has fallen by the wayside with the failure of the Ron Paul campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
layer8 4y ago
Maybe libertarians just downvote less? I mean, nominally they should?
- akvadrako 4y ago
  I tend more libertarian than anything and I mostly down-vote. That's because most people have too low of a threshold for what constitutes a valuable comment.
- rascul 4y ago
  Why should they downvote less?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - xwdv 4y ago
    Because they believe people should have freedom to say what they want. Most downvotes seem to come from people vouching for big government regulation, oddly enough.
    - rascul 4y ago
      Down voting is a way of expressing disagreement. Nothing anti libertarian about that.
      - rpdillon 4y ago
        I tend libertarian sometimes. Downvoting on HN reduces the readability of the post, so if I downvoted posts I disagreed with, it would be to reduce the influence of people that disagree with me. I'm not very comfortable with that, to be honest. I have opinions, but they can't all be correct, so reducing the ability of the community to read posts that contradict my own seems counter-productive, and imposes the will of the collective (through voting) on the individual by reducing the reach of their speech. I feel this is somewhat anti-libertarian. Because of this, I reserve downvotes not for disagreement, but when I think someone is making an argument in bad faith, particularly if it's bullshit. In particular, some posts on HN make bold, unsubstantiated claims and tend to put the onus on the community to debunk those claims. I downvote those posts when I sense the "bullshit asymmetry principle"[0], in action because it's a tax on folks that post thoughtful comments for the benefit or amusement of the bullshitter. The link has more context, but the idea can be summarized simply: > ...the “bullshit asymmetry principle,” holds that "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than what’s needed to produce it.” [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Education_and_reasoning_as_immunization_against_bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Education_and_reasoni...

by rascul 4y ago

I see a lot of comments advocating for more regulation, more policies, more government control, less individual freedom. Many that argue the other way are down voted.

bigyikes 4y ago

Do you disagree with those comments? I ask because Dang often links to a collection of threads where people make this type claim[1]. If we’re to believe him, the bias you’re perceiving may not actually exist, and may actually be a reflection of your own personal biases. Not sure whether you relate to that, but I definitely could. Since learning of this, I actually view Hacker News as roughly politically neutral. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922311 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922311

rascul 4y ago
It's just what I (remember) seeing. My own views and biases may certainly have an effect on that. Note that the comments Dang linked to are making claims that HN is this or HN is that. I only claim that I saw things. It's a difference, but possibly a small difference, I guess.

Apocryphon 4y ago

Times have changed greatly since the Great Recession. Individuals in general are more materially dispossessed than they were in the end of history '90s. Even well-paid hackers in San Francisco or Seattle can see poverty all around them. Meanwhile, corporate wealth and power have risen to the stuff of cyberpunk fantasies. Less luxury, nowadays, to be an absolutist individualist. Not to mention, libertarianism as a American political ideology has fallen by the wayside with the failure of the Ron Paul campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

layer8 4y ago

Maybe libertarians just downvote less? I mean, nominally they should?

akvadrako 4y ago
I tend more libertarian than anything and I mostly down-vote. That's because most people have too low of a threshold for what constitutes a valuable comment.
rascul 4y ago
Why should they downvote less?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xwdv 4y ago
  Because they believe people should have freedom to say what they want. Most downvotes seem to come from people vouching for big government regulation, oddly enough.
  - rascul 4y ago
    Down voting is a way of expressing disagreement. Nothing anti libertarian about that.
    - rpdillon 4y ago
      I tend libertarian sometimes. Downvoting on HN reduces the readability of the post, so if I downvoted posts I disagreed with, it would be to reduce the influence of people that disagree with me. I'm not very comfortable with that, to be honest. I have opinions, but they can't all be correct, so reducing the ability of the community to read posts that contradict my own seems counter-productive, and imposes the will of the collective (through voting) on the individual by reducing the reach of their speech. I feel this is somewhat anti-libertarian. Because of this, I reserve downvotes not for disagreement, but when I think someone is making an argument in bad faith, particularly if it's bullshit. In particular, some posts on HN make bold, unsubstantiated claims and tend to put the onus on the community to debunk those claims. I downvote those posts when I sense the "bullshit asymmetry principle"[0], in action because it's a tax on folks that post thoughtful comments for the benefit or amusement of the bullshitter. The link has more context, but the idea can be summarized simply: > ...the “bullshit asymmetry principle,” holds that "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than what’s needed to produce it.” [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Education_and_reasoning_as_immunization_against_bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Education_and_reasoni...