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

Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

coralproject.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#61

Post by adamsea »

lapnitnelav wrote: post #58
olah_1 wrote: post #55

>In our study of gender nonbinary people of color, women of color, and online commentary, participants talked about having to constantly run a cost-benefit analysis on participation in any online conversations, based on the likelihood that they would be attacked, merely for participation. 4chan solved this problem a decade ago. Put your content before your identity rather than the other way around. In many spaces tod…

Exactly, the main thing about 4ch and the likes is that you can't satiate your need for validation through likes / upvotes and a profile. Much like what Instagram is trying now (hiding other people's likes count) or this very platform, doing away with those metrics should help foster better conversations.

> you can't satiate your need for validation through likes / upvotes and a profile.

The concern mentioned in the excerpt from TFA was a perception by the people it spoke to that they had to self-censor in order not to be personally attacked in online discussion.

You make a good point but it seems like it is about something other than what the TFA excerpt describes.

TFA quoted by OP:

> participants talked about having to constantly run a cost-benefit analysis on participation in any online conversations, based on the likelihood that they would be attacked, merely for participation.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#62

Post by gdubs »

olah_1 wrote: post #55

>In our study of gender nonbinary people of color, women of color, and online commentary, participants talked about having to constantly run a cost-benefit analysis on participation in any online conversations, based on the likelihood that they would be attacked, merely for participation. 4chan solved this problem a decade ago. Put your content before your identity rather than the other way around. In many spaces tod…

Did they, though? The only demographics I could find on 4chan are their advertising stats, and according to that the site is 70% men under 35, mostly from the US and a handful of European countries. [1]

Doesn’t really sound like a thriving wellspring of diverse opinions.

1: https://www.4chan.org/advertise

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#63

Post by lapnitnelav »

adamsea wrote: post #61
lapnitnelav wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the main thing about 4ch and the likes is that you can't satiate your need for validation through likes / upvotes and a profile. Much like what Instagram is trying now (hiding other people's likes count) or this very platform, doing away with those metrics should help foster better conversations.

> you can't satiate your need for validation through likes / upvotes and a profile. The concern mentioned in the excerpt from TFA was a perception by the people it spoke to that they had to self-censor in order not to be personally attacked in online discussion. You make a good point but it seems like it is about something other than what the TFA excerpt describes. TFA quoted by OP: > participants talked about having…

Yeah, I agree with you but I think removing a way to feed the ego might have side effects that could help, namely killing any mean behaviour fueled by the need for points.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#64

Post by new_guy »

olah_1 wrote: post #52
jdavis703 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need more than agree and disagree to measure engagement, otherwise you're just measuring polarization. For example you might want to measure several reactions such as: interesting, funny, angering and sad.

>interesting, funny, angering and sad. If facebook is any indication, these end up being used mostly ironically. I can't imagine they give facebook any real indication of emotion on their platform. Even the "angry" react (which is mostly an ironic reaction), is missing the context. Are you angry with the commenter? Are you angry about the something the commenter is referencing?

>Even the "angry" react (which is mostly an ironic reaction), is missing the context. Are you angry with the commenter? Are you angry about the something the commenter is referencing?

Interestingly on my site we have a total of 31 custom reactions people can use to express their reaction to a piece. The ONLY one people feel the need to qualify is the dislike one, anytime someone uses it they qualify it with 'disliking the content, not the post'.

There's no obvious reason for it though, the dislike is just one among many and it looks the same as all the other reactions, but it's the only one to generate a unique response.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#65

Post by antihero »

olah_1 wrote: post #55

>In our study of gender nonbinary people of color, women of color, and online commentary, participants talked about having to constantly run a cost-benefit analysis on participation in any online conversations, based on the likelihood that they would be attacked, merely for participation. 4chan solved this problem a decade ago. Put your content before your identity rather than the other way around. In many spaces tod…

Ah yes, 4chan, the bastion of respectful and productive online discourse.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#66

Post by Kaiyou »

lapnitnelav wrote: post #63
adamsea wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't satiate your need for validation through likes / upvotes and a profile. The concern mentioned in the excerpt from TFA was a perception by the people it spoke to that they had to self-censor in order not to be personally attacked in online discussion. You make a good point but it seems like it is about something other than what the TFA excerpt describes. TFA quoted by OP: > participants talked about having…

Yeah, I agree with you but I think removing a way to feed the ego might have side effects that could help, namely killing any mean behaviour fueled by the need for points.

Are you suggesting there's no mean behavior on 4chan?

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#67

Post by jmcqk6 »

olah_1 wrote: post #55

>In our study of gender nonbinary people of color, women of color, and online commentary, participants talked about having to constantly run a cost-benefit analysis on participation in any online conversations, based on the likelihood that they would be attacked, merely for participation. 4chan solved this problem a decade ago. Put your content before your identity rather than the other way around. In many spaces tod…

>In many spaces today, being a straight white man is far more inflammatory than being a non-binary person of color.

As a straight white man, this is bullshit. I have many close friends who are part of the LGBT community, so I can see their experiences compared to my own. They don't go around "pushing their identity onto people" and neither do I. We're all just normal people trying to build cool things.

And I see my experiences are much more positive than theirs.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#68

Post by Kaiyou »

antihero wrote: post #65
olah_1 wrote: post #55

>In our study of gender nonbinary people of color, women of color, and online commentary, participants talked about having to constantly run a cost-benefit analysis on participation in any online conversations, based on the likelihood that they would be attacked, merely for participation. 4chan solved this problem a decade ago. Put your content before your identity rather than the other way around. In many spaces tod…

Ah yes, 4chan, the bastion of respectful and productive online discourse.

I hear they've recently been pushing racist and edgy themes like family cohesion, Christianity and a fatphobic healthy lifestyle with exercise. \s

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#69

Post by dTal »

gdubs wrote: post #62
olah_1 wrote: post #55

>In our study of gender nonbinary people of color, women of color, and online commentary, participants talked about having to constantly run a cost-benefit analysis on participation in any online conversations, based on the likelihood that they would be attacked, merely for participation. 4chan solved this problem a decade ago. Put your content before your identity rather than the other way around. In many spaces tod…

Did they, though? The only demographics I could find on 4chan are their advertising stats, and according to that the site is 70% men under 35, mostly from the US and a handful of European countries. [1] Doesn’t really sound like a thriving wellspring of diverse opinions. 1: https://www.4chan.org/advertise

Bear in mind that a perfectly equal sex distribution would be 50%; 70% is skewed, but hardly a sausage party.

And I don't think you need to be from a diverse set of locations to have a diverse set of opinions.

Re: Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation

#70

Post by Fellshard »

adamsea wrote: post #61
lapnitnelav wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the main thing about 4ch and the likes is that you can't satiate your need for validation through likes / upvotes and a profile. Much like what Instagram is trying now (hiding other people's likes count) or this very platform, doing away with those metrics should help foster better conversations.

> you can't satiate your need for validation through likes / upvotes and a profile. The concern mentioned in the excerpt from TFA was a perception by the people it spoke to that they had to self-censor in order not to be personally attacked in online discussion. You make a good point but it seems like it is about something other than what the TFA excerpt describes. TFA quoted by OP: > participants talked about having…

Welcome to being a human being.

No, seriously, if you're a person who is not measuring what they're saying to see what the cost may be, you can expect attacks to come your way for your own carelessness, and it has nothing to do with your identity. Being able to gush at the mouth is not, in fact, a sign of privilege, but is rather more rope to hang yourself with.

Post reply on HN