3 ms·
That might be an appropriate threshold for Wikipedia, but not for HN.
by mikhailfranco 3y ago
That might be an appropriate threshold for Wikipedia, but not for HN.
- hnbad 3y agoTo that point, HN commenters are also directly incentivized to say certain things because of the way the voting works. You can get a lot of upvotes just by seeming profound (especially if you have a reputation) or "rational" without being either of those things because few people have the time and energy to dissect comments beyond first impressions. Bonus points if you can cite a study even if it does not actually say what you claim or is otherwise dubious (because after all, dismissing it based on the author would be an "ad hominem", right?). The problem HN has with YT content creators being motivated by certain factors is not that they're less trustworthy but that they're tacky. Like Reddit (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community) which is nothing like HN (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community).