Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 241 posts

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#131

Post by eevilspock »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #120
eevilspock wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silent downvotes right on schedule! I think civil and honest discussion would be better served without the anonymous down-votes. One can still retain privacy with a pseudonym. I find it ironic that Hacker News is not Hackable! The most important thing about HN, its ranking algorithm and reputation system (karma), is closed and not hackable in any way. I know HN wishes it could come up with a better algorithm, and eve…

I think it would be solved by requiring a comment with each downvote. The motivations for an upvote are obvious but a downvote should have to explain why, even if it something as simple as "citation needed" or "factually incorrect, here's why." I often get the sense that anonymous and unexplained downvotes carry a sense of "this post is so obviously wrong it defies the need for explanation," which means that nobody l…

That would result in too many redundant comments. Many people will down-vote for exactly the same reason.

Though I do wish HN could distinguish between "I subjectively don't like or disagree with your point" and "Your logic is objectively flawed or rests on false data".

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#132

Post by [deleted] »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #120
eevilspock wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silent downvotes right on schedule! I think civil and honest discussion would be better served without the anonymous down-votes. One can still retain privacy with a pseudonym. I find it ironic that Hacker News is not Hackable! The most important thing about HN, its ranking algorithm and reputation system (karma), is closed and not hackable in any way. I know HN wishes it could come up with a better algorithm, and eve…

I think it would be solved by requiring a comment with each downvote. The motivations for an upvote are obvious but a downvote should have to explain why, even if it something as simple as "citation needed" or "factually incorrect, here's why." I often get the sense that anonymous and unexplained downvotes carry a sense of "this post is so obviously wrong it defies the need for explanation," which means that nobody l…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#135

Post by krapp »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #120
eevilspock wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silent downvotes right on schedule! I think civil and honest discussion would be better served without the anonymous down-votes. One can still retain privacy with a pseudonym. I find it ironic that Hacker News is not Hackable! The most important thing about HN, its ranking algorithm and reputation system (karma), is closed and not hackable in any way. I know HN wishes it could come up with a better algorithm, and eve…

I think it would be solved by requiring a comment with each downvote. The motivations for an upvote are obvious but a downvote should have to explain why, even if it something as simple as "citation needed" or "factually incorrect, here's why." I often get the sense that anonymous and unexplained downvotes carry a sense of "this post is so obviously wrong it defies the need for explanation," which means that nobody l…

In that case, it seems to me all of the value lies in the comment, and none in the downvote.

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#136

Post by theswaagar »

eloy wrote: post #13

I'd say Reddit. There are some heavy moderated subreddits for insightful discussions, like reddit.com/r/truereddit. Because Reddit has a voting system like HN, quality content is being upvoted and shown as first. If you search you can probably find some more subreddits with less general content. And HN is of course a really great website for such discussions, with a lot of highly intelligent people that post quite le…

/r/politicaldiscussion is one that I frequent

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#137

Post by josh5555 »

I say this with all seriousness - 4chan.org/pol is great if you can get past the satire and small number of prolific trolls. If you visit you will find an international community of genuinely intelligent, knowledgeable people there. Go to the "catalog" and find a discussion that interests you, avoid clickbait threads. Don't let the reputation fool you. A lot of it is blown out of proportion to keep people away and afraid to engage there. However, there are trolls and paid posters which tend to post inflammatory things especially during an election season. At least give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised, I was.

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#138

Post by DanBC »

eevilspock wrote: post #131
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be solved by requiring a comment with each downvote. The motivations for an upvote are obvious but a downvote should have to explain why, even if it something as simple as "citation needed" or "factually incorrect, here's why." I often get the sense that anonymous and unexplained downvotes carry a sense of "this post is so obviously wrong it defies the need for explanation," which means that nobody l…

That would result in too many redundant comments. Many people will down-vote for exactly the same reason. Though I do wish HN could distinguish between "I subjectively don't like or disagree with your point" and "Your logic is objectively flawed or rests on false data".

> Though I do wish HN could distinguish between "I subjectively don't like or disagree with your point" and "Your logic is objectively flawed or rests on false data".

We never hear complaints about people not distinguishing between "I subjectively like or agree with your point" and "Your logic is objectively sound or rests on good data".

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#139

Post by cookiecaper »

eevilspock wrote: post #131
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be solved by requiring a comment with each downvote. The motivations for an upvote are obvious but a downvote should have to explain why, even if it something as simple as "citation needed" or "factually incorrect, here's why." I often get the sense that anonymous and unexplained downvotes carry a sense of "this post is so obviously wrong it defies the need for explanation," which means that nobody l…

That would result in too many redundant comments. Many people will down-vote for exactly the same reason. Though I do wish HN could distinguish between "I subjectively don't like or disagree with your point" and "Your logic is objectively flawed or rests on false data".

How can HN distinguish when even its users cannot? "Objectivity" is so subjective.

Re: Ask HN: Where do you go for civil discussion on the Internet?

#140

Post by lintiness »

mozumder wrote: post #69
eloy wrote: post #13

I'd say Reddit. There are some heavy moderated subreddits for insightful discussions, like reddit.com/r/truereddit. Because Reddit has a voting system like HN, quality content is being upvoted and shown as first. If you search you can probably find some more subreddits with less general content. And HN is of course a really great website for such discussions, with a lot of highly intelligent people that post quite le…

The problem with places like Reddit is that they rely on users to moderate. The obvious problem with that is now stories are filtered based on populist mass appeal, instead of insightful or expert appeal. Populist content is very different from expert content. Clickbait headline is populist content. A peer-reviewed journal headline is expert content. Which one do you think is going to be upvoted in a place like Reddi…

depends on the moderators, obviously, but "academics" aren't immune to clickbait headlines (they advance on attention too).

the problem with politics is there's not black and white, clear cut right a wrong, but there's a never ending pile of people who insist there is.

Post reply on HN