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

181–190 of 241 posts

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

#181

Post by smsm42 »

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".

> 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".

I would like having strong AI driving HN too. Because humans are very bad at distinguishing those two and confuse them all the time. Once we invent the AI that allows people to separate them I'd be all for using it here on HN.

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

#183

Post by sergiotapia »

pyre wrote: post #67
sergiotapia wrote: post #4

Almost all of the popular communities online lean left, take your pick. You have much slimmer pickings if you're a conservative. http://gab.ai recently launched as a pro free-speech twitter alternative, I would also check them out.

> Almost all of the popular communities online lean left, take your pick. Like Reddit where /r/TheDonald is consistently at the top of /r/all, and stories about terrorism on /r/WorldNews devolve into xenophobic rants that stop just short of containing phrases like "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim?" That's not too "left leaning" to me.

No. Reddit modified their algorithm weeks ago to remove /r/the_donald from the frontpage. Before it routinely made it due to the sheer number of upvotes and users engaged. They 'tweaked' their algorithm to allow more "diversity"; their words not mine.

Also /r/worldnews is HEAVILY censored to remove any criticism against islam in particular. If you see it it's probably because they missed a spot.

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

#184

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

devinhelton wrote: post #152
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…

I agree, but I think the comment should be a private message, seen by only the commenter (and perhaps the mods). I don't like seeing a comment thread cluttered up by debates about whether a comment deserves down votes.

1: Presumably, people won't post redundant downvote comments. One or two tends to get the point across.

2: You can still collapse threads.

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

#185

Post by niftich »

It's funny, because 4chan, especially it's topic-focused sub-boards, isn't nearly as unfit for this as it might seem. Yes, the signal-to-noise ratio will be low and it'd be generous to pretend the conversation will always be civil, but there are some pluses:

- No downvotes, so opposing viewpoints don't get suppressed

- (Multi-)Reply support, so you can address your response to a specific post or posts

- Everyone already expects a low signal-to-noise ratio

- Everyone comes expecting some amount of personal attacks, offensive content, blatant trolling, and off-topic posts, so seasoned commenters aren't driven off by this behavior

- Default anonymity means no way to earn or lose reputation, so the only way to judge a post is by its content

4chan has plenty of downsides regardless and it won't appeal to everyone. But compared to Youtube comments or the typical CNN comment section, there is far less majority-moderation, far less intermingling of policy points and personal attacks within the exact same post, and far less propensity for people to respond to comments they deem off-topic or irrelevant.

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

#186

Post by veddox »

rubidium wrote: post #21

Let me answer a different question: where do you go for civil, insightful commentary? I recommend gathering a group of "morning cup of coffee" people with an intellectual bent. This works particularly well among more academic neighborhoods, but can be done elsewhere. Get 3-10 people you know (or get to know these people) that are generally aware of the world, from different walks of life/professions, and start meetin…

Can confirm this. I get my best, deepest and most respectful conversations on a huge range of topics simply by talking to my best friends at university. (As we have some very different views, those discussions can be quite lively, but as we all respect each other personally, they remain civil.)

Moral of the story: Choose your friends wisely.

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

#187

Post by smsm42 »

eevilspock wrote: post #89
TeMPOraL wrote: post #8

I mostly stay here. The amount of political and economic discussion here is what I personally consider enough in my life; I don't think looking for more sources would improve SNR for me. I sometimes like to peruse Reddit for some well-defined topics - the trick is to find an appropriate subreddit for it. So, for instance, when I want to follow SpaceX news, I'll tune in to /r/spacex, because quite a lot of people ther…

The problem with HN for politics and economics is its decidedly Silicon Valley, libertarian and white male slant, often self-servingly pedantically amoral. The civility here is often arrived at by burying comments that challenge this self-serving slant. Or by an algorithm that systematically buries articles and users (whose accounts accrue ranking penalties) that generate any heated debate by challenging the slant. W…

There's challenging and there's challenging. If you're starting discussion with "you're amoral white male so here shut up and listen I'll tell you what you have to do to redeem your sorry existence" (I'm not saying you do, it's just an example - but not too far from what I've seen done in other places) - it's a challenge all right, but not one that would lead to a good discussion.

Also, experience suggests there are topics that generate almost no useful discussion and very quickly descend into a shoutfest, outgroup shaming and virtue posturing. It is possible that this one discussion on the very topic will not follow the pattern that thousands before it did, but usually the risk is not worth it.

Not every debate is good. And so, generating debate by itself is not a virtue.

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

#188

Post by tomjen3 »

manish_gill wrote: post #92
chetangoti wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible for me to join that community?

Sorry, it's just I'm trying to keep it among known people or people who are vetted by people we know and trust (that also includes IRL identity etc). Like I said, when I see momentum and people deriving tangible benefit from it, I'll take it public! :-)

Maybe make it read only for those who are not vetted? That would keep standards high and you can have a different place where everybody can comment add a source of future members.

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

#189

Post by rubidium »

yodsanklai wrote: post #159
rubidium wrote: post #21

Let me answer a different question: where do you go for civil, insightful commentary? I recommend gathering a group of "morning cup of coffee" people with an intellectual bent. This works particularly well among more academic neighborhoods, but can be done elsewhere. Get 3-10 people you know (or get to know these people) that are generally aware of the world, from different walks of life/professions, and start meetin…

I don't think you can get the same collective intelligence in a small group (even composed of very bright people) as you can find here on HN.

If intelligence = information, then I agree.

If intelligence = analysis, then I must disagree.

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

#190

Post by smsm42 »

whybroke wrote: post #164
someone7x wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The civility here is often arrived at by burying comments that challenge this self-serving slant. This is where I have to disagree. I feel the civility comes from swift and brutal downvotes of low effort contributions. If there's a pattern that I see amongst grey/flagged/dead comments is that they are most often off-topic and/or low effort. Not to say that groupthink doesn't exist or come into play, just that it's…

I agree that vacuous comment are ruthless downvoted as they should be. But observations, even with high grade citations that criticize the libertarian narrative are also regularly down voted to oblivion. Likewise any criticism of Russia gets clobber very quickly no matter how much evidence is offered. [edit] likewise pointing out either of those two problems So yes, poor post are down voted very efficiently but there…

> Likewise any criticism of Russia gets clobber very quickly no matter how much evidence is offered

That doesn't seem to be my experience - I've criticized Russia many times without any problem.

Post reply on HN