Talk: An open-source commenting platform focused on better conversation • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by Kaiyou » Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 11:01 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #86

Kaiyou wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan is unfiltered and there are a bunch of people that aren't able to handle this, so it's a self-selected pool of people that are capable of participating in unfiltered discussion. In other communities heavy filtering is going on. Comments get removed and accounts banned, so that the people that cannot handle unfiltered content won't leave. Personally I think all content should be unfiltered and the people who can…

4chan isn't unfiltered. Every community has its culture with its accepted norms and taboos, to say nothing of the requirement of any site on the open web to ban illegal content like child porn, and many like 4chan which also ban threats of violence and brigading. The boards on 4chan aren't immune to this simply because they don't use dedicated accounts. Not every board is /b/, and even they have their limits. Having…

There's no need for tolerance for opposing views. What's important is communication. That means listening, not tolerating, and engaging. What you describe as hate are valid opinions based on rationality. It's possible to engage them in discussion. They're not ignoring facts and can be brought to change their mind. I've engaged them before, I know. Voat is a pretty good place for this. But you need to enter the conversation with the assumption that you could be wrong, otherwise your view gets clouded and all you see is hate. Instead of banning you for wrongthink, on Voat people actually respond to you with providing sources for their opinions, which you can then review and either debunk or validate. But you will be insulted a lot. People who can't handle this should stay away.

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

#92

Post by KajMagnus » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 12:45 AM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #16

a3n wrote: post #4

The bullet list seems to describe Twitter. I've wondered why most publishers of comments don't just give up and say "comment on Twitter." Not that I would like that, but still ...

It would be interesting to have a commenting system powered by Twitter where each article/post has a Twitter post with the article name and link so others not finding this post through your website can still comment, and the replies to this Twitter post can be pulled into you article/post and listed as comments.

> the replies to this Twitter post can be pulled into you article/post and listed as comments

I think that wouldn't work because of copyright and Terms of Use. Probably somewhere in Twitter's ToU there's something that says you cannot copy Twitter discussions and add to your own website. — If you study Twitter's ToU, probably the people who post to Twitter, never gave you permission to include their tweets on your blog.

I like the idea, and would want to do sth simiar, but just linking to tweets, instead of "downloading" them to the blog. And the blog author could write a summary of what the Twitter discussion is about (what sub topic related to the blog post, the Twitter discussion discusses), next to the link.

I'd also like to automatically find and link to discussions at HN and Reddit and Mastodon (in a commenting system I'm developing, seem my profile)

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

#93

Post by krapp » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 12:56 AM UTC

Kaiyou wrote: post #91

krapp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan isn't unfiltered. Every community has its culture with its accepted norms and taboos, to say nothing of the requirement of any site on the open web to ban illegal content like child porn, and many like 4chan which also ban threats of violence and brigading. The boards on 4chan aren't immune to this simply because they don't use dedicated accounts. Not every board is /b/, and even they have their limits. Having…

There's no need for tolerance for opposing views. What's important is communication. That means listening, not tolerating, and engaging. What you describe as hate are valid opinions based on rationality. It's possible to engage them in discussion. They're not ignoring facts and can be brought to change their mind. I've engaged them before, I know. Voat is a pretty good place for this. But you need to enter the conver…

With all due respect, I'm looking at the front page of Voat right now, and articles like "Fucking jews want whites to eat this shit now 'for the environment'" and "Stop the Jewish war machine" don't appear to be presenting "valid opinions based on rationality", or a community which I should expect to be able to engage in honest, intellectual discourse.

I think it's a perfectly valid opinion on my part to consider this garbage and to not want its stench everywhere.

Not because I'm afraid to have my views challenged, or to be insulted, but because it shouldn't be my responsibility to have to turn every racist and bigot on the internet, particularly when opinions to the contrary abound and they could just as well educate themselves, and because it gets tiring to deal with this kind of nonsense all the time.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 1:09 AM UTC

USNetizen wrote: post #46

So....like Disqus but open source then?

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by olah_1 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

new_guy wrote: post #64

olah_1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 'dislikin…

It would be interesting if all reactions could have some system of reacting to different parts of a post.

Perhaps you can attach a react onto the username instead of the comment? Or you can attach a react onto a specific sentence of a comment instead of the entire comment?

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

#96

Post by olah_1 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

jmcqk6 wrote: post #67

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 e…

How good is your experience in tech if you preface a statement with "as a straight white man..."? I'd say the response would be downright aggressive and you would be silenced.

Preface a statement with "as a non-binary person of color..." and you get applause.

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

#97

Post by olah_1 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

lapnitnelav wrote: post #71

Kaiyou wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I find 4 chan to be an interesting experiment. Yes it mostly is a cesspool. Yes folks there are pretty much awful. But it's also extremely egalitarian. Everyone is on the same, whether you be an old * or a new *. I don't partake but I like to dive in and observe them. Fascinating, because as much as we'd like to deny it, 4chan is the whole spectrum of humanity.

>Yes it mostly is a cesspool. Yes folks there are pretty much awful.

This isn't even true in my experience. Frankly, it's a reputation that helps to keep the riff raff out of the space. Chan communities are the best kept secret on the internet, in my opinion.

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

#98

Post by olah_1 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

davesmith1983 wrote: post #82

gdubs wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those characteristics aren’t arbitrary; they equate to an entirely different life experience. That means a more diverse set of viewpoints. “People who are different from one another in race, gender and other dimensions bring unique information and experiences [...]” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-mak...

Sorry assumptions about how an individual thinks based on their race, gender or sexuality is clearly a nonsense. You cannot point at any individual and know their thoughts. The best you can do is say "This demographic in this place tends to agree with this statement". As for the the actual article you linked, the author herself has nice race-bait titles of work such as "The White standard: Racial bias in leader categ…

If anything, communities like 4chan have helped to dispel my preconceived notions about specific races, genders, etc.

People would be surprised.

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

#99

Post by olah_1 » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

adamsea wrote: post #57

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…

You are literally saying “hide who you are, whenever I decide that who you are does not matter.” EDIT: OP literally says: “ I'm not saying hide who you are. But it's simply not relevant to the vast majority of discussions.” Again, who gets to make that decision? Who gets to set the criteria for making that decision?

>Again, who gets to make that decision? Who gets to set the criteria for making that decision?

The people you're talking to. These are all just social mores, but you are the one that deals with the fallout.

There's pushback on identity first discourse because it's often seen as distasteful.

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

#100

Post by Kaiyou » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #93

Kaiyou wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no need for tolerance for opposing views. What's important is communication. That means listening, not tolerating, and engaging. What you describe as hate are valid opinions based on rationality. It's possible to engage them in discussion. They're not ignoring facts and can be brought to change their mind. I've engaged them before, I know. Voat is a pretty good place for this. But you need to enter the conver…

With all due respect, I'm looking at the front page of Voat right now, and articles like "Fucking jews want whites to eat this shit now 'for the environment'" and "Stop the Jewish war machine" don't appear to be presenting "valid opinions based on rationality", or a community which I should expect to be able to engage in honest, intellectual discourse. I think it's a perfectly valid opinion on my part to consider thi…

Like I said, if you can get over this and assume that you may be wrong it's a great place for discussions. If you engage them you will notice, that most of the stuff you see there is perfectly rational. You're just trapped in a filter bubble and possibly uncomfortable to find out your gay, to use a weird proverb.