Thanks to the HN moderators for re-posting this after I posted this a few days ago. I only notice now that it's on the front page. Happy to answer any questions. Let me tell you, I've really enjoyed having those writers that I like highlighted on this comment thread because it makes it very easy to scan it. I think it's important to remember that this is not about hiding writers you disagree with. It's simply about m…
> identify quality authors and filter out obnoxious commenters
> not about hiding writers you disagree with
> It's also fun to read the writers you disagree with
[But] > to reinforce your opinion of them. [Did you misspeak here?]
> this reduces the time I spent on Hacker News
> find the good stuff based on people you trust
This is very confused.
* Do we want to avoid ideas that we disagree with?
* Do we want to avoid authors we've labelled as annoying? (This is about meta-level bad ideas, about how to interact.)
* Do we want to avoid meta-level ideas that we disagree with?
* What if your friends disagree about who their friends and enemies are?
* What it they don't disagree, isn't that creepy? Echo chamber much?
* Is it right to pre-empt your own interest by labelling material before reading it? I don't know!
Seems to me that rational pre-filtering should be along subtle, personal, ever-changing lines, and you should constantly be deciding on the spot based on complex information including your current mood and dyspepsia. How should interest work? You may start reading a thing and decide "this is not for me" (or "this is a troll or a bot"). Or with a tool like this one you may carry out the same process faster, and more crudely, using less information and less serendipity. So you're encouraging people to be in a rush and make more superficial choices instead of mining for the gold. On the other hand, maybe they are in a rush and need to be like that.