Ask HN: A place like HN but with more nerdy stuff and less social stuff?

I'm not near as focused as you are, but I understand your discontent. I have two suggestions.

One, the easy thing (easy as in less work and commitment), which a few others have suggested. Help make HN better, make it what you want. It's probably already closest to what you want, among the alternatives.

Read /newest and upvote good content and good comments. I personally rarely downvote bad comments, I just avert my eyes. I do flag spam, it's like picking up litter. But downvoting is an option, and part of the deal. Just don't "be a downvoter," it will probably make you feel worse, and make reading HN like a burden. Don't carry a cross, just watch the parade. (Worst metaphor you'll read today.)

Write good comments. Respond seriously and helpfully to the occasional lame or hostile comment. Be the change you want to see, and all that.

But mainly, get good at ignoring what you don't like. There's still a lot to like.

Two ... this will take some work and time. You can do it in parallel with HN, or wherever you go from HN. Curate your own discussion group. Look around in your current social, academic and work circle, and talk to a small handful (less than five-ish, more than one), who you think might be interested in discussing what you're interested in. Establish some broad but focused discussion topics.

Set up a mechanism for you all to discuss privately. If you're all local, beer is a great mechanism. Otherwise the easiest and simplest thing would be email, and you should probably stop at that; don't focus on the tools (fun though they are, especially the beer), start discussing as quickly as possible; like, this afternoon. Really, this afternoon. If you like, one of you can maintain a forwarding address, so you don't have to each maintain lists. But you don't need that this afternoon, let that emerge naturally. I've been a member of exactly such a list for ... 15 years? Dayam.

Every once in awhile, invite a new individual in. Do it slowly and deliberately. Don't obsess or agonize over whether someone is right for the group; if you thought of them, they probably are. If they aren't, they'll stop participating. New people will change the dynamics and focus, and that's a good thing. Just do it slowly, not as a focus.

Be generous and engaging with your fellow list members. Accept heat, and let it dissipate quickly. The fewer rules you have, the less they'll be broken.

Over the years, your group might grow to five, or ten, or a hundred, it's up to you.

As you communicate with people you know personally (or online personally), there's a danger that the group might take on some social aspects. You may even become friends with some or all of them. That's a risk that you'll have to take. It's not so bad. :)

In theory it may be a good idea, but in practice it's essentially a "CENSOR THIS POST" button that people use to get rid of content they don't agree with.

I've also noticed that negative points on a post completely destroys credibility despite cited evidence or a well thought out argument. I've seen identical comments on similar posts in the past where the first few voters determined the post's fate in that if the first few voters voted it down, the post would receive flames and even more downvotes, but if it was initially upvoted, more people would upvote it and it would receive well thought out replies.

Probably the most horrifying part of the downvote is that all it takes is 51% of voters to dislike your post to destroy it. For example, all it takes is 51% of viewers on the politics subreddit to turn the the /r/politics frontpage into a pseudo fox news where every single post praises democrats and slanders republicans.

It strikes me as disgusting that some people actually consider reddit to be a good place to have a controversial discussion when it's so pathetically easy to censor opinions that you don't agree with.

https://github.com/jcs/lobsters