5 ms·

It's interesting that service complaints are so popular on HN. I always feel a bit bad that my most popular HN contribution was me complaining about a popular s

It's interesting that service complaints are so popular on HN. I always feel a bit bad that my most popular HN contribution was me complaining about a popular service

Rick76 2y ago
I don't like it, but it seems the internet always reacts more to inherently negative posts. That seems to be common across the entire internet, I think that's why the internet doesn't seem as fun as it did 10 years ago. I'm sure it's just human psyche but I'm trying to overcome it and make my life more positive again
andrewmcwatters 2y ago
I suspect a large percentage of Dan's work moderating HN is downweighing posts that incite engagement from frustration. I've had on at least one occasion the top comment in a thread by over 100 upvotes that was purely the sentiment of several readers but did not contribute to the curated voice of the community.
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
A popular theory on techie parts of the web is that engagement-optimizing sites create this negativity loop, but I disagree. I think negativity is naturally something that people seek no matter what the algorithm is. In an upvote based site, outrage ranks to the top. I also think text based platforms suffer from negative engagement much moreso than multimedia platforms. Model correlation is decent here but there's certainly more to do to use its outputs predictively.
- jerjerjer 2y ago
  Humans love having something to be righteously indignant about.
- Vampiero 2y ago
  If that theory were true then, what about every website on the internet pre-2010? What about 4chan? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias We're just built like that. Regarding text platforms suffering more than non-text platforms, I think it's because of the lack of social cues that are otherwise there. You can infer a lot from the way someone talks, or from their body language. You can't infer much from text, which is partly why Poe's law exists -- sarcasm doesn't translate well.
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    > what about every website on the internet pre-2010 It was definitely there. Plenty of forums had "rant threads" that were efforts to quarantine shitty reactionary behavior like this. Also a lot of the healthier forums were smaller forums. I was on plenty of forums that had 10-20 folks on them that today would just be a Telegram group chat or a small Discord "server". These small spaces tend to be a lot lower on toxicity than larger fora. I was part of a few large fora like Gaia Online and they were just as toxic as today's large platforms. Managing large communities with chronological posting is really difficult and upvote based social networks were the first real networks to be able to scale to larger userbases without having hundreds of moderators (like Gaia or the large MUDs.) > What about 4chan? 4chan is immune because the default emotional register there is indignant dismissal. Because of this it's just a matter of choosing what else to layer ontop of the indignant dismissal, like sarcasm or anger or whatnot. > Regarding text platforms suffering more than non-text platforms, I think it's because of the lack of social cues that are otherwise there. You can infer a lot from the way someone talks, or from their body language. You can't infer much from text, which is partly why Poe's law exists. That's an interesting theory actually. My theory was that in the age of multimedia platforms, text platforms tend to attract folks who specifically want to use text over multimedia. Generally text forums will select for folks with social or self-esteem issues. These folks are the least likely to healthily deal with their emotions or disengage positively. This leads to higher toxicity on text based platforms.
    - Vampiero 2y ago
      > My theory was that in the age of multimedia platforms, text platforms tend to attract folks who specifically want to use text over multimedia. Generally text forums will select for folks with social or self-esteem issues. These folks are the least likely healthily deal with their emotions or disengage positively. This leads to higher toxicity on text based platforms. Yeah that's very plausible indeed
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      > My theory was that in the age of multimedia platforms, text platforms tend to attract folks who specifically want to use text over multimedia. Generally text forums will select for folks with social or self-esteem issues. These folks are the least likely to healthily deal with their emotions or disengage positively. This leads to higher toxicity on text based platforms. Some people like to take time to compose thoughts in written form because that is generally the best way to communicate thoughtfully. You can say what you will about a lack of body language, but plenty of people get into verbal fights in person and it doesn't help that they end up talking over each other. I think that your assertion that people who communicate via text have social issues is without evidence and is reductive. You could say that people who enjoy looking at themselves and hearing themselves enough to edit their footage and post it online have ego issues and are less likely to listen to what others have to say.
- miki123211 2y ago
  As a mastodon user, I can definitely confirm this. Give people the way to repost / retweet / boost, and your feed suddenly turns into mostly negativity, even if your algorithm is "show posts from my followers only, newest to oldest"
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    Yeah my Bluesky followers are carefully curated to stop from swelling into negativity. I've been playing around with a labeller that filters followed posts into those that I find emotionally pleasant which I've been training based on my own labeling of followers' posts. The goal is to follow more people and have the labeller (or feed generator depending on how I go) hide the posts I don't care for.
- int_19h 2y ago
  This video will make you angry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- johnfn 2y ago
  I don't really agree with this. I go and hang out with my friends, and we don't all end up getting outraged about stuff. I go for a walk in the park and no one is shouting at me; I go to a restaurant and people are sitting around normally discussing whatever. If you start quoting outrage bait that you read online, people might look at you strangely. My point is I don't think people seek out outrage. Social media's algorithms may not explicitly reward it as transparently as `if (post.outrage > 100) post.boost()`, but outrage isn't some default rule of interaction.
kelnos 2y ago
I flag most complaint posts, unless the complaint actually brings to light or discusses something surprising or unique that can be generalized and discussed. I generally find these posts pretty boring, and most comments on them are people recounting their own stories about how that (or a similar) service screwed them over. I suppose they can be a decent way to warn people off of a particular product (scammy, terrible customer support, whatever), but that's not what I come to HN for.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

It's interesting that service complaints are so popular on HN. I always feel a bit bad that my most popular HN contribution was me complaining about a popular service

Rick76 2y ago

I don't like it, but it seems the internet always reacts more to inherently negative posts. That seems to be common across the entire internet, I think that's why the internet doesn't seem as fun as it did 10 years ago. I'm sure it's just human psyche but I'm trying to overcome it and make my life more positive again

andrewmcwatters 2y ago

I suspect a large percentage of Dan's work moderating HN is downweighing posts that incite engagement from frustration. I've had on at least one occasion the top comment in a thread by over 100 upvotes that was purely the sentiment of several readers but did not contribute to the curated voice of the community.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago

A popular theory on techie parts of the web is that engagement-optimizing sites create this negativity loop, but I disagree. I think negativity is naturally something that people seek no matter what the algorithm is. In an upvote based site, outrage ranks to the top. I also think text based platforms suffer from negative engagement much moreso than multimedia platforms. Model correlation is decent here but there's certainly more to do to use its outputs predictively.

jerjerjer 2y ago
Humans love having something to be righteously indignant about.
Vampiero 2y ago
If that theory were true then, what about every website on the internet pre-2010? What about 4chan? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias We're just built like that. Regarding text platforms suffering more than non-text platforms, I think it's because of the lack of social cues that are otherwise there. You can infer a lot from the way someone talks, or from their body language. You can't infer much from text, which is partly why Poe's law exists -- sarcasm doesn't translate well.
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  > what about every website on the internet pre-2010 It was definitely there. Plenty of forums had "rant threads" that were efforts to quarantine shitty reactionary behavior like this. Also a lot of the healthier forums were smaller forums. I was on plenty of forums that had 10-20 folks on them that today would just be a Telegram group chat or a small Discord "server". These small spaces tend to be a lot lower on toxicity than larger fora. I was part of a few large fora like Gaia Online and they were just as toxic as today's large platforms. Managing large communities with chronological posting is really difficult and upvote based social networks were the first real networks to be able to scale to larger userbases without having hundreds of moderators (like Gaia or the large MUDs.) > What about 4chan? 4chan is immune because the default emotional register there is indignant dismissal. Because of this it's just a matter of choosing what else to layer ontop of the indignant dismissal, like sarcasm or anger or whatnot. > Regarding text platforms suffering more than non-text platforms, I think it's because of the lack of social cues that are otherwise there. You can infer a lot from the way someone talks, or from their body language. You can't infer much from text, which is partly why Poe's law exists. That's an interesting theory actually. My theory was that in the age of multimedia platforms, text platforms tend to attract folks who specifically want to use text over multimedia. Generally text forums will select for folks with social or self-esteem issues. These folks are the least likely to healthily deal with their emotions or disengage positively. This leads to higher toxicity on text based platforms.
  - Vampiero 2y ago
    > My theory was that in the age of multimedia platforms, text platforms tend to attract folks who specifically want to use text over multimedia. Generally text forums will select for folks with social or self-esteem issues. These folks are the least likely healthily deal with their emotions or disengage positively. This leads to higher toxicity on text based platforms. Yeah that's very plausible indeed
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    > My theory was that in the age of multimedia platforms, text platforms tend to attract folks who specifically want to use text over multimedia. Generally text forums will select for folks with social or self-esteem issues. These folks are the least likely to healthily deal with their emotions or disengage positively. This leads to higher toxicity on text based platforms. Some people like to take time to compose thoughts in written form because that is generally the best way to communicate thoughtfully. You can say what you will about a lack of body language, but plenty of people get into verbal fights in person and it doesn't help that they end up talking over each other. I think that your assertion that people who communicate via text have social issues is without evidence and is reductive. You could say that people who enjoy looking at themselves and hearing themselves enough to edit their footage and post it online have ego issues and are less likely to listen to what others have to say.
miki123211 2y ago
As a mastodon user, I can definitely confirm this. Give people the way to repost / retweet / boost, and your feed suddenly turns into mostly negativity, even if your algorithm is "show posts from my followers only, newest to oldest"
- Karrot_Kream 2y ago
  Yeah my Bluesky followers are carefully curated to stop from swelling into negativity. I've been playing around with a labeller that filters followed posts into those that I find emotionally pleasant which I've been training based on my own labeling of followers' posts. The goal is to follow more people and have the labeller (or feed generator depending on how I go) hide the posts I don't care for.
int_19h 2y ago
This video will make you angry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
johnfn 2y ago
I don't really agree with this. I go and hang out with my friends, and we don't all end up getting outraged about stuff. I go for a walk in the park and no one is shouting at me; I go to a restaurant and people are sitting around normally discussing whatever. If you start quoting outrage bait that you read online, people might look at you strangely. My point is I don't think people seek out outrage. Social media's algorithms may not explicitly reward it as transparently as `if (post.outrage > 100) post.boost()`, but outrage isn't some default rule of interaction.

kelnos 2y ago

I flag most complaint posts, unless the complaint actually brings to light or discusses something surprising or unique that can be generalized and discussed. I generally find these posts pretty boring, and most comments on them are people recounting their own stories about how that (or a similar) service screwed them over. I suppose they can be a decent way to warn people off of a particular product (scammy, terrible customer support, whatever), but that's not what I come to HN for.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]