I suspect the vast majority only read HN, some comment, and a much smaller number actively vote in new, and an even smaller number vote on individual comments a

I suspect the vast majority only read HN, some comment, and a much smaller number actively vote in new, and an even smaller number vote on individual comments absent a slapfight in the comments. I found my participation got more... contentious when I started voting and submitting, not just occasionally commenting. I mentioned during my Wikipedia privacy engineer interview a few years ago that I think many sites have a false promise of wanting feedback and HN is a great example. (I told Wikimedia that if hired, I'd implement a dot onion on their site to reduce the load on exit nodes plus help their users avoid the chilling effects they've discussed on the policy side and I think HN should as well.) For context, I had to temporarily abandon this nym for years after I was physically assaulted in the midst of taking a break from an OSCP study session to engage in some legally protected free expression... that librarian no longer works for that township, but dear lord -- when it comes to so called "free speech" some folks seem to only support it when it's being used to increase harm to vulnerable people or line their pockets. Now that I understand the guidelines, I find HN to be what Slashdot strived to be though obviously the Eternal September 11th of folks showing up to demand an end to encryption and/or democract (the two are intertwined) or relentlessly argue until you break some rule of decorum will always be an issue. (The solution to the wolf warrior internet diplomats is to simply curse them out, but that's not allowed here sadly.) - Greg.