3 ms·

What's the utility of an agree/disagree button? I don't think I would want to see that even if it was available to me. I downvoted the parent comment because

What's the utility of an agree/disagree button? I don't think I would want to see that even if it was available to me. I downvoted the parent comment because it's a crappy one-liner. It adds nothing except to express that some people are cool with swearing, which is not a very novel sentiment, and it does so in a way intended as flamebait.

chrischen 17y ago
That's your opinion. To me, I thought it was a good one liner. See our differing opinions? Down voting/flagging should be reserved for those comments people mutually agree on as bad. What's the difference between discouraging by threat of jail time and discouraging vs social disapproval? Both are threats against you for certain behaviors. While these threats may be justified for stuff people all agree on are bad like racism, I do not think it's a good idea for subjective opinions. It will lead to socially induced censorship and society as a whole will become single-minded, afraid of thinking against the crowd. I think HN should foster the environment for unique thinking and controversial comments. Sure there isn't official discouragement of certain opinions, but if we allow the mob to do it it's practically the same thing.
- mquander 17y ago
  I guess it boils down to this: I have absolutely no interest in reading a website with comments like that. If a large proportion of comments were one-line opinions and purely argumentative back-and-forths, I would just not bother reading the HN comment sections. So I downvote it. Now, I understand that you feel the opposite way. The only objective argument I can make for my position is that there are a great number of general-interest sites on the Internet with a huge amount of discussion which is on par with "That's fucking stupid," but only a handful with discussion that is consistently free of such comments and the associated derailing of the conversation that they frequently bring. (Historically, it seems like the only realistic way to weed them out is by keeping a community small or having heavy active moderation.) I'd like to encourage more of the latter. I don't really like your analogies between physical intimidation and violence and downvoting, because the consequences of physical threats are so much more serious. I can't understand how it's a serious harm to anyone to tell them "you can't express viewpoints X, Y, or Z on Hacker News." It's a shame, but it's one of the very smallest shames that can possibly be inflicted upon a person. I understand that you're concerned in an idealistic sense about the ethics of using simple majority rule to tell someone "you can't say that," but I just don't think it's a big concern in this context, when the whole Internet is an ultimate egalitarian arena full of people saying anything and everything. The much bigger problem, to me, is having so much content that you can't read the really high-quality things because they are swamped with noise that adds nothing, or almost nothing. (By high-quality things I mean ideas and arguments that are novel, useful, and well-informed.)
  - chrischen 17y ago
    That's essentially what up voting is for. It is a one way distillation that would also avoid any possible majority silencing of unpopular views. We don't punish people for being dumb, we reward people who are smart. Jail time is physical intimidation, but it is just one example of intimidation. My point is that such physical intimidation is no different from social intimidation upheld by the majority view in society. And such social intimidation is no different from down voting. Just as you were probably taught by someone at some point in your life to respect other's viewpoints, we should foster that here too. Down voting because of differences in viewpoint is not a sign of respect. And you can fully respect someone while still getting your share of the "better" comments because there is still an up vote mechanism. Without down vote simply means you can't disrespect comments that while are not overly additive to the conversation, are also not overly disruptive either.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      Meh. I've never had a problem with throwing out a dissident opinion on forums with up/down moderation. I've often been surprised how fast I've gotten modded up when I've done that. People do react well to interesting, thought-provoking arguments, and many will avoid down-modding them even when they strongly disagree. People do not react well to complaints that people who disagree with them are repressed or afraid, especially when the dissenter's expressed fear is that they will be down-modded. (The same goes for the "This will get me down-modded, but..." tactic.)
      - chrischen 17y ago
        There will always be many who will downvote simply to supress dissident opinions. Dissident opinions do not show up as much as mainstream ones, for obvious reasons. So the opportunity for a good dissident response to be disregarded is less. But when it does happen, it's much greater a loss to the overall community.
warp 17y ago
The utility of an agree/disagree button would be to prevent the up/down vote arrows to be used for that purpose, which a few in this thread claim is what is happening. (I doubt that would work though, but am curious to know if that has been implemented anywhere)
jrockway 17y ago
I downvoted your comment because I am arbitrary and fickle.

chrischen 17y ago

That's your opinion. To me, I thought it was a good one liner. See our differing opinions? Down voting/flagging should be reserved for those comments people mutually agree on as bad. What's the difference between discouraging by threat of jail time and discouraging vs social disapproval? Both are threats against you for certain behaviors. While these threats may be justified for stuff people all agree on are bad like racism, I do not think it's a good idea for subjective opinions. It will lead to socially induced censorship and society as a whole will become single-minded, afraid of thinking against the crowd. I think HN should foster the environment for unique thinking and controversial comments. Sure there isn't official discouragement of certain opinions, but if we allow the mob to do it it's practically the same thing.

mquander 17y ago
I guess it boils down to this: I have absolutely no interest in reading a website with comments like that. If a large proportion of comments were one-line opinions and purely argumentative back-and-forths, I would just not bother reading the HN comment sections. So I downvote it. Now, I understand that you feel the opposite way. The only objective argument I can make for my position is that there are a great number of general-interest sites on the Internet with a huge amount of discussion which is on par with "That's fucking stupid," but only a handful with discussion that is consistently free of such comments and the associated derailing of the conversation that they frequently bring. (Historically, it seems like the only realistic way to weed them out is by keeping a community small or having heavy active moderation.) I'd like to encourage more of the latter. I don't really like your analogies between physical intimidation and violence and downvoting, because the consequences of physical threats are so much more serious. I can't understand how it's a serious harm to anyone to tell them "you can't express viewpoints X, Y, or Z on Hacker News." It's a shame, but it's one of the very smallest shames that can possibly be inflicted upon a person. I understand that you're concerned in an idealistic sense about the ethics of using simple majority rule to tell someone "you can't say that," but I just don't think it's a big concern in this context, when the whole Internet is an ultimate egalitarian arena full of people saying anything and everything. The much bigger problem, to me, is having so much content that you can't read the really high-quality things because they are swamped with noise that adds nothing, or almost nothing. (By high-quality things I mean ideas and arguments that are novel, useful, and well-informed.)
- chrischen 17y ago
  That's essentially what up voting is for. It is a one way distillation that would also avoid any possible majority silencing of unpopular views. We don't punish people for being dumb, we reward people who are smart. Jail time is physical intimidation, but it is just one example of intimidation. My point is that such physical intimidation is no different from social intimidation upheld by the majority view in society. And such social intimidation is no different from down voting. Just as you were probably taught by someone at some point in your life to respect other's viewpoints, we should foster that here too. Down voting because of differences in viewpoint is not a sign of respect. And you can fully respect someone while still getting your share of the "better" comments because there is still an up vote mechanism. Without down vote simply means you can't disrespect comments that while are not overly additive to the conversation, are also not overly disruptive either.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Meh. I've never had a problem with throwing out a dissident opinion on forums with up/down moderation. I've often been surprised how fast I've gotten modded up when I've done that. People do react well to interesting, thought-provoking arguments, and many will avoid down-modding them even when they strongly disagree. People do not react well to complaints that people who disagree with them are repressed or afraid, especially when the dissenter's expressed fear is that they will be down-modded. (The same goes for the "This will get me down-modded, but..." tactic.)
    - chrischen 17y ago
      There will always be many who will downvote simply to supress dissident opinions. Dissident opinions do not show up as much as mainstream ones, for obvious reasons. So the opportunity for a good dissident response to be disregarded is less. But when it does happen, it's much greater a loss to the overall community.

warp 17y ago

The utility of an agree/disagree button would be to prevent the up/down vote arrows to be used for that purpose, which a few in this thread claim is what is happening. (I doubt that would work though, but am curious to know if that has been implemented anywhere)

jrockway 17y ago

I downvoted your comment because I am arbitrary and fickle.