NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments • Hacker News Board

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#461

Post by intended » Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 11:27 AM UTC

gruyere wrote: post #457

intended wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's this: Maybe for the next community, instead of making it public - potential users will instead have to find the site by solving a bunch of hidden puzzles. Think secret club. Jokes aside: a major part of why HN works is that the community here self selects for several traits which ensure healthier communication. As a forum becomes more mainstream, many things happen to attenuate the signal to noise ratio. (Pg ha…

Ah, that's a great clarification. I wasn't trying to be argumentative in my response, I was sincerely trying to determine what you meant. I'm glad you did, because your comment is great. Thanks!

hey thanks. I was half worried it was a terrible comment.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#462

Post by solipsism » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 2:08 AM UTC

evgen wrote: post #420

solipsism wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with HN is that 90% of the downvote justifications would be "this differs from my worldview".

In the end that is really all that internet discussions boil down to, so why fight it? I could write a long rebuttal, backed up with anecdotes from my own worldview and cherry picked stats and facts I googled theory seconds ago to confirm my prior worldview and it's superiority to yours, but what is the point? No one has their minds changed by HN comment threads or witty political commentary on Facebook. This site ca…

I'm reading this super late, but I wanted to say I agree completely.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#463

Post by kbenson » Fri, Aug 26, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #436

dang wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users who make self-flattering claims about why they were banned from HN—always for some allegedly tinpot reason—are unreliable narrators. The real reason is invariably more sordid, which is why they omit to supply links. The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. They often do so shortly after proclaiming that they're leaving HN forever and will ne…

The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. I'm hoping that you base your moderating decisions on the actions of the user in question ("human behind the keyboard" user regardless of account name) and not the "typical such user"? Do you have evidence that you are chosing not to release that 'james-watson' is such a user? Most HN readers would be surpr…

Oh, wow. I find myself equally glad and sad I missed this when it was originally happening. It's exactly the type of community meta-analysis and naval gazing I seem to be drawn to, but really isn't very good for me. :)

> The most interesting thing to me is that there are often multiple conflicting "echo chamber" claims in flight, with each side feeling like the lone outcast.

Confirmation bias (specifically confirmation bias on bias) + terse domain specific terminology (of many different dialects) favored by members for it's efficiency of expression and the subsequent loss of some implications by those less versed in that DSL + normal communication inefficiency in expressing thought = arguments where both sides are mostly in agreement + tendency to attribute opposing positions more strongly or more often then they actually exist.

> Perversely, this might mean that accusations of being an echo chamber is a good metric for diversity of opinion.

I think the contrapositive might be easier to rely on. No accusations of being an echo chamber probably means there isn't enough diversity, while accusations indicate that there's at least enough diversity for people to form a perception that there is an echo chamber, whether there is one or not.