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

Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 204 posts

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#151

Post by jandrese »

Grishnakh wrote: post #80
jandrese wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I on the other hand assume that random downvotes are part of the system and don't worry about them overly much. I also don't check on my post history except to see if there are replies to my comments. I have been kicked out of online communities for not aligning with the groupthink, but I tend to see that as a positive for me in the long run. If I'm so disliked by a community then I'm not going to force it. I one ang…

The problem is that karma is all-important on this site, and ends up creating different social strata, and a feedback mechanism which is what these other posters are complaining about. On Reddit, for example, it really doesn't matter if you get a few downvotes. Your post is still visible, and you still have the ability to up or downvote anyone else. You are not a lesser member of the community on that site when you g…

If you put even a basic effort into posting quality content and avoid trolling you will have positive karma. This is always true. You may take a hit from time to time, but in the long run your total score will be overwhelmingly positive. This is true of every forum. You only need to worry about karma if you like to start arguments or shitpost.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#152

Post by brobinson »

Taek wrote: post #101
justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

Anonymity often brings relief to people who weight otherwise self-censor. 4chan is a really good example of this. Though it's got a terrible SNR, the peak signal is actually really high and sometimes you see really intelligent discussions about taboo topics like incest, furrydom, and racism. The anonymity allows people to state beliefs that simply wouldn't be acceptable anywhere else. Maybe HN should have an 'anonymo…

It's also great that even though certain boards have heavy biases (e.g., /pol/ is overwhelmingly right wing, /o/ mostly hates American cars, etc.), you can still walk into the proverbial lion's den with an opinion that goes against the prevailing narrative and have an interesting discussion about it. There's no instant censorship through downvoting, and, as you hinted at, there's no upvoting just because people like the username that posted.

Quote from the current owner of 4chan: "All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work."

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#153

Post by MaulingMonkey »

Grishnakh wrote: post #90
fweespee_ch wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I often find myself self-censoring or abandoning the comment halfway, because I know it will get down voted and it's just a waste of time. Please don't, it is just karma. > Which brings me to the thought: If one of the most intelligent and open minded online communities can exhibit censorship or can determine users to self-censor, then what can be said about other communities/platforms ? I think its an example of a…

It is not "just karma". This isn't Reddit. On here, low karma means you can't downvote (while higher-karma people can, so they can use that to suppress the opinions of the low-karma people), which effectively makes you a second-class citizen here. Even worse, if the mods disagree strongly with your post, they'll happily detach it (so no one else can see it) and threaten to ban you.

> It is not "just karma". On here, low karma means you can't downvote (while higher-karma people can, so they can use that to suppress the opinions of the low-karma people)

It is "just karma". Without karma, you can't negatively effect other people's karma, which is also just karma. This is the default state everyone started in. Moreover, you can still suppress opinions while having low karma - simply upvote everything else.

I'm of the opinion that the style of disagreement matters a lot more than the opinion itself, for karma impact. I have seen - in another community, granted - serious arguments in favor of cannibalism gain more upvotes than down, because it was done in a well reasoned and constructive manner.

As for communities where this isn't the case? Well, I'm interested in proper conversation and dialog on topics. One that prefers unity of thought, instead, is an echo chamber of parrots I want no part in - voting/karma system or not. I have left communities over smaller issues, and lived a happier life for it. In that case, it's not even "just karma" - it's "just karma in a community I've left."

> Even worse, if the mods disagree strongly with your post, they'll happily detach it (so no one else can see it) and threaten to ban you.

That can happen regardless of your karma - speaking from the perspective of a 'karma' 1%er in another community who's eaten temp-bans.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#154

Post by InclinedPlane »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29
justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

I'd encourage you to stop 'self-censoring'. What matters a few karma points, if you have something important to say? You'll find that often an initial knee-jerk downvoting can turn around half a day later, as more considerate users join the conversation.

I comment a lot less on HN than I used to, and a lot of that I think has to do with the change in the community, the tone, something like that. For me I don't care about internet points, but upvotes and downvotes affect how visible your comments end up being in a thread. It seems as though there's a lot less substantive discussion on HN than there used to be. The front page moves faster and people aren't interested in having discussions. It's not a matter of going through the effort of making a post and then being disappointed in being downvoted, or not being upvoted. It's a matter of writing something and then having it ignored, which makes you wonder why you even bothered in the first place. Are you just shouting into the void?

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#155

Post by [deleted] »

maxerickson wrote: post #71
erichocean wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do the same on HN (self-censor, constantly) and have come to peace with it. I don't submit over 80% of the HN posts I write, and I immediately delete anything that gets one down vote. Furthermore, if I do post something that gets a down vote, I update my "don't post" probabilities to match, meaning I post even less. I'd encourage you to try and not feel bad about the situation. It's not your job to provide insight…

Why do you give such importance to individual clicks? I really don't get it. You reward a person whose opinion you disagree with, punish yourself (in a very minor way) and take away any chance that other people will click the other button.

[deleted]

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#156

Post by Bjartr »

RodericDay wrote: post #138
imron wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of downvotes costing you karma. Forcing the comment box is also interesting. Maybe only make the downvote available to people who have already replied to a post.

One paradoxical thing about discussions here is that often I see a bad post, followed up with a really good reply. And I want the two to be seen in tandem, but if I sink the parent I also sink the child. So I often upvote both. Just a stray thought.

I would say that if a "bad post" has resulted in good discussion, then it wasn't a bad post. It might be in poor taste, but if that is a filtering criteria then you're going to get groupthink around controversial subjects.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#157

Post by pwnna »

eternalban wrote: post #50
justsaysmthng wrote: post #27

HN is the most intelligent and open minded online community of this size that I know online. I have deep respect for you guys and girls and your opinions are always enlightening and thought provoking. I really feel much smarter because I have access to all these very valid points of view that you are surfacing. But even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" which leads me to go into this…

> even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" There is absolutely no social cost for downvoting without commenting. Adding costs and accountability: - force comment box on downvotes - deduct from karma - flagging only Is it important for HN's community to have a "psychologically safe" [1] at this point in time? I can not think of a more critical time for the "STEM" crowd to have a viable…

Just to present another point that I just thought of:

Imagine if we take the downvote ability away from everyone. I believe there is still an "implicit" downvote in the form of every other comment getting upvoted. Under the current system, upvoted posts will be pushed to the top and downvoted posts will be on the bottom. Would this not cause the same effect as previous? Being ignored several times because your opinion does not conform the social norm will cause you to self sensor (or leave HN), would it not?

At the same time I think we recognize the value of upvotes, which in theory should allow for relevant and thoughtful content to be pushed to the top so more people can be exposed to it. Otherwise we'd have the traditional forums, which has widely variable SNR.

I'm not sure how to reconcile these points:

1. The wish to filter for "good" post and filter out the "bad" posts.

2. The subjective definition of "good" or "bad".

3. "Bad" (opposite) opinions gets buried because of point 2.

On the other hand I think education does work, as personally I refrain from downvoting when i disagree, only when it clearly does not add value (but even then, that is subjective). Although I'm not sure if this is obvious enough to HN users who first gained the ability to downvote.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#158

Post by grahamburger »

williamcotton wrote: post #132
eternalban wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" There is absolutely no social cost for downvoting without commenting. Adding costs and accountability: - force comment box on downvotes - deduct from karma - flagging only Is it important for HN's community to have a "psychologically safe" [1] at this point in time? I can not think of a more critical time for the "STEM" crowd to have a viable…

HackerNews is a marketing channel for a technology investment firm. Why should they care about balanced conversation? What if those balanced conversations somehow promote criticism of companies that they are involved with?

Groups of people only become mindlessly profit driven when that's the last common goal they have left. In a large enough group that seems to always happen because people's goals are so diverse, but I suspect that HN team is still small enough to have some common goals outside of just collecting a paycheck.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#159

Post by js8 »

javajosh wrote: post #124
eternalban wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even this community suffers from this strange phenomena of "group think" There is absolutely no social cost for downvoting without commenting. Adding costs and accountability: - force comment box on downvotes - deduct from karma - flagging only Is it important for HN's community to have a "psychologically safe" [1] at this point in time? I can not think of a more critical time for the "STEM" crowd to have a viable…

The idea of forcing a comment on downvote is an excellent one, and I for one would like to try that for a little while. (I say this as someone who tries to only downvotes for tone and trolling, never for disagreement.)

Yes! It's so annoying to be downvoted without knowing why, and without being able to respond to that argument. It just kills the discussion.

Re: Mass surveillance silences minority opinions, according to study

#160

Post by hammock »

jacquesm wrote: post #129
imron wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of downvotes costing you karma. Forcing the comment box is also interesting. Maybe only make the downvote available to people who have already replied to a post.

Karma economy: Every submitted link or comment: +1 karma, every upvote, another +1, but a -1 for the upvoter. In the case of a downvote on a comment: -1 for the comment writer, -1 for the downvoter.

  Each upvote on a submission: +100 for submitter, -1 for voter. 
  Each upvote on a comment: +10 for commenter, -1 for voter. 
  Each downvote on a comment: -10 for commenter, -1 for voter
This aligns with the ladder of engagement, where there are 10x as many creators as commenters as voters, while keeping a steady stream of currency injection.
Post reply on HN