2 ms·

Try out lobste.rs It's way too easy to argue about politics on the net without any real effect--too fun, too easy, and too useless.

mindcrime 13y ago
Try out lobste.rs I do, and I like lobste.rs, but it's a little bit of a catch-22. Lobste.rs is more "ideologically pure" because the userbase is smaller, but that smaller userbase also means there is a lot less discussion going on at any given time. But I think we're clearly starting to see aspects of the "Eternal September" effect here, due to the user growth over the years. So what can ya do? sigh It's way to easy to argue about politics on the net without any real effect--too fun, too easy, and too useless. So very true. :-(
- angersock 13y ago
  So, some of the problem--a good part, really--is that political discussion need not be furious debate and talking past each other. An article on some sort of political theory, on some philosophy of governance, etc. can lead to useful discussion. Having more systems articles on politics is something I wouldn't mind seeing on HN at all. But, most articles posted (I believe--haven't run a report on it) do not seem to lend themselves to that sort of thoughtful analysis.
  - davidw 13y ago
    > is that political discussion need not be furious debate and talking past each other. No, but it's pretty much bound to wind up that way. The effort to put forth a well-considered, nuanced, reasoned point of view is an order of magnitude more than that required for a snarky one-liner about "dude, like, the US is, like, totally not a democracy and stuff". Which means that the latter out-competes the former.
    - ericd 13y ago
      The voting system should be at least a partial feedback loop against that effect, but it's obviously not perfect, especially if people view it as "agree/disagree" rather than "quality/not quality". I get the sense that reddit has historically been the former whereas HN was mostly the latter.
      - arg01 13y ago
        It's actually the opposite, historically rediquette was to upvote quality and not downvote just because you disagree. Where as HN policy is to downvote things you disagree with. The difference is just that reddit grew faster and had a broader focus. Without careful moderation HN will grow (both in users and topic types submitted) and will suffer from eternal september as well.
        ericd 13y ago
        Ah good to know about Reddit, I never saw that phase. HN wasn't the opposite, though it seems to be getting more that way.

mindcrime 13y ago

Try out lobste.rs I do, and I like lobste.rs, but it's a little bit of a catch-22. Lobste.rs is more "ideologically pure" because the userbase is smaller, but that smaller userbase also means there is a lot less discussion going on at any given time. But I think we're clearly starting to see aspects of the "Eternal September" effect here, due to the user growth over the years. So what can ya do? sigh It's way to easy to argue about politics on the net without any real effect--too fun, too easy, and too useless. So very true. :-(

angersock 13y ago
So, some of the problem--a good part, really--is that political discussion need not be furious debate and talking past each other. An article on some sort of political theory, on some philosophy of governance, etc. can lead to useful discussion. Having more systems articles on politics is something I wouldn't mind seeing on HN at all. But, most articles posted (I believe--haven't run a report on it) do not seem to lend themselves to that sort of thoughtful analysis.
- davidw 13y ago
  > is that political discussion need not be furious debate and talking past each other. No, but it's pretty much bound to wind up that way. The effort to put forth a well-considered, nuanced, reasoned point of view is an order of magnitude more than that required for a snarky one-liner about "dude, like, the US is, like, totally not a democracy and stuff". Which means that the latter out-competes the former.
  - ericd 13y ago
    The voting system should be at least a partial feedback loop against that effect, but it's obviously not perfect, especially if people view it as "agree/disagree" rather than "quality/not quality". I get the sense that reddit has historically been the former whereas HN was mostly the latter.
    - arg01 13y ago
      It's actually the opposite, historically rediquette was to upvote quality and not downvote just because you disagree. Where as HN policy is to downvote things you disagree with. The difference is just that reddit grew faster and had a broader focus. Without careful moderation HN will grow (both in users and topic types submitted) and will suffer from eternal september as well.
      - ericd 13y ago
        Ah good to know about Reddit, I never saw that phase. HN wasn't the opposite, though it seems to be getting more that way.