> most depressing toxic response It's concerning that you have such a low bar for using such extreme language, which seems a bit tone-deaf given the point you

> most depressing toxic response It's concerning that you have such a low bar for using such extreme language, which seems a bit tone-deaf given the point you are trying to make. Couldn't you have phrased that in a less flamebait way? To elaborate and address your valid point, however: OP implies a confusion between the subjective and objective. The site makes statements in an objective way as if they are facts about what is "news", "interesting", and what is bad content. Being a publicly available tool reinforces that implication further. My final takeaway point, as explained by all the previous points before it, was that this is incorrect because the OP's objectively described views are in fact very subjective. This is one in a long line (dozens?) of "HN but more X less X"es, and most make this mistake, which is why they never gain any ground. I could have been less discouraging, however, so I'll try and take that onboard.