The moderation tools and expected community involvement in using them was built for a much smaller site with a more active user base... and it works reasonably.
When you then add on top of it "engagement" metrics, scale up the number of questions per day by orders of magnitude without the corresponding scaling up of the community involvement and (to an extent) try to remove the ability for the community to moderate and curate the content then the tools that are left to the community are the social ones (as they can be used beyond the limited number of down, close, and delete votes that one has in a day).
And then you're left with "the way to handle questions where the person didn't even put the title into Google to search first is to be rude to them." It's not a good thing, but without the barriers to entry being implemented in code they are erected by reputation and social forces instead.
It isn't a good thing - and it would probably be much better if those barriers were put in place through some other means... but as long as engagement is the measured metric and ad impressions are the income, having company's developers implement it is a non-starter and you're left with the community using rudeness as the moderation tool of last resort.
From A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27706413 )
> Four Things to Design For
> ...
> 3.) Three, you need some barriers to participation, however small. This is one of the things that killed Usenet, because there was almost no barrier to posting, leading to both generic system failures like spam, and also specific failures, like constant misogynist attacks in any group related to feminism, or racist attacks in any group related to African-Americans. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some kind of segmentation of capabilities.
> ...
> 4.) Finally, you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations. In conversational contexts, Metcalfe’s Law— the number of connections grows with the square of the number of nodes—is a drag. Since the number of potential two-way conversations in a group grows so much faster than the size of the group itself, the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales up even a little bit. You have to have some way to let users hang onto the “less is more” pattern, in order to keep associated with one another.