4 ms·
He might be. Or he might not be. He did not provide any justification or even argument, so his post reads like a simple flamebait. We should keep those on reddi
by ptero 3y ago
He might be. Or he might not be. He did not provide any justification or even argument, so his post reads like a simple flamebait. We should keep those on reddit. My 2c.
- worksonmine 3y agoYou can't expect people to back up everything with sources in every comment. If anyone is curious they can just ask for an elaboration, as someone did and they got one. Downvotes are for lazy people afraid of discussion, if it violates any rules there's the flag.
- ImHereToVote 3y agoHow could it violate the rules? The article is directly about how Google handles voting. Maybe the article is inappropriate.
- worksonmine 3y agoI wasn't referring to your comment, I agree with you.
- ptero 3y agoDownvoted are for comments that do not appear to add value. That's not a rigorous definition, but in practice it works reasonably well. The original comment made a pretty explosive claim without any rationalization. Without some substantion that comment just inflames folks without fostering an interesting discussion. My 2c.
- jsnell 3y agoIt cuts both ways. You also can't expect people to write long rebuttals to every inane conspiracy theory. That just allows people like the OP to commit what are effectively denial of service attacks on the community, by posting low effort ramblings with the expectation that they deserve a discussion, which the other people would need to put way more effort into than the OP would. Downvotes are for hiding this crap at the bottom of the page, so that it at least doesn't take away the oxygen from discussions grounded in reality.
- worksonmine 3y agoSomeones conspiracy theory is someone else's truth. And often they become everyone's truth after some time, see the lab leak theory for a recent example. This is the internet, you don't get to control what others say and still get to speak your own mind. I assume you don't need to back your claims up, am I right? Just dropping the magic words is enough. I hate that word with a passion, it's used as the one and only argument to shut down discussion. Did you know that Google recently changed their terms to allow to censor results during "special events" or some bullshit like that? Big-tech trying to control the narrative is not a conspiracy theory, it's in the open. If you don't have the attention span to argue your point or ask for an elaboration just move on. We are in the comment section for the discussion not for validation from the hive mind, right? Am I expecting too much from HN?
- jsnell 3y agoSee, this is funny, because it's actually you who is trying to control others, by demanding that they put in time and effort on engaging with low quality and low effort content rather than just downvote and move on.
- worksonmine 3y ago"But what about you". No, I don't. I'm arguing that downvoting is a lazy way to discuss. It's anonymous, drive-by and a completely useless way to speak your mind. I'm arguing that the option to downvote discourages discussion. They don't have to engage at all if the quality was so low. What about the comment was low quality? How can it be improved? Are the claims incorrect? Or was someone just offended? All that information is lost with the downvote and there's no way to find out. If they know so much better why don't they use that knowledge and educate? What is low quality is subjective, I don't think the comment was low quality, but the downvote brigade managed to hide it. It's a shame because this could've been an interesting thread. Ironic given the context don't you think?