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

201–210 of 241 posts

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

#201

Post by sctb »

pjc50 wrote: post #153
eevilspock wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

.. and it's back on the front page after a spell in the doghouse?! "Inequality in tech" is a subject that's guaranteed to get flagged into invisibility.

> .. and it's back on the front page after a spell in the doghouse?!

This post hit the flamewar detector (see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=flamewar%20penalty%20dang&sort...), and we removed the penalty when we noticed.

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

#202

Post by truth_sentinell »

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…

Do you happen to have one of your own? I'd be interested in joining.

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

#203

Post by danneu »

simonswords82 wrote: post #123
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…

Reddit's greatest strength (the subreddit architecture) is also its greatest weakness. Subs attract groups of likeminded individuals usually with a particular interest, and as such a default tone and set of opinions are preset within a sub before you arrive. If you fail to understand what the preset rules of engagement and opinions are you're going to have a bad time. Worse still, if you happen to disagree with the g…

A big pain point of the subreddit system would be solved in an amusing way if subreddits were qualified by the creator's name.

Example: /r/@theymos/bitcoin. Now, instead of looking like Reddit's canonical Bitcoin discussion forum, you're reminded that it's just one person's forum at the mercy of one person's agenda.

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

#204

Post by truth_sentinell »

rubidium wrote: post #189
yodsanklai wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think intelligence it's both. Therefore : intelligence = information || analysis Since the first is true, there is intelligence.

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

#205

Post by nik1aa5 »

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…

reddit.com/r/geopolitics

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

#206

Post by eevilspock »

smsm42 wrote: post #180
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…

So let's consider the alternative - forcing people to comment on downvoting. Let's say I see a post that is clearly not contributing to the discussion (on my personal opinion of course, not that I have any other one :) or is too misguided to even argue with, or lacks any redeeming merit, etc. Now, I want less of this on HN, so I am going to downvote it. Now, let's say I'm forced to comment on it. I can't really say a…

You ignored the alternative that I suggested.

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

#207

Post by whybroke »

bmelton wrote: post #172
whybroke wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm trying to figure out how "The city should be building affordable housing" is considered a libertarian ideal, and I can't get there from here. Can you help me understand why you feel that it is? I'm having an equally hard time finding the libertarian angle in the top comments to the other threads you referenced.

It is not. Although the idea rent control benefits no one and that north American land ownership is unambiguously virtuous both are. Points I have objected to to his account's serious detriment. I can not fathom why you imply I make such claims about affordable housing although, even ridiculously untrue, it cleverly nullifies my complain doesn't it?

But whether I personally eat babies or not does not change the problem I have pointed out.

There is a problem that I and others have taken the time to point out, and rest assured if one person points it out, far more don't bother. So whether anyone wishes to address the problem or just downvote the complain itself is not really my concern.

In the end the site is an advertisement for ycombinator and in practice it's really a question of how they want their organization perceived. I had assumed having NY Times articles that point out Russian interference in Swedish politics swiftly whooshed from the front page does not serve that end.

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

#209

Post by oAlbe »

smsm42 wrote: post #187
eevilspock wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Not every debate is good.

True. But why can't we just let not-good debates die on their own, instead of not giving them a chance at all?

Post reply on HN