The truth is that if you're looking for informed discussion from people with knowledge and insight on a topic, then a forum with absolutely no rules generally doesn't fly. There are different characteristations of this, but "the evaporative cooling effect" is a good general description -- too much noise and the clue flees.

http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-...

The more ironic as I was using that argument with a Wikipedia editor who'd run into issues of petty dictators on certain Wikpedia articles:

https://plus.google.com/+PeterStrempel/posts/Rbm6AusBgmt

Comments sections of most online sites are tripe. It takes effort and curation to make them otherwise. Finding ways to offer voice without drowning in noise is difficult. HN is one of the exceptions, as are Metafilter, some subreddits, and a very few other places online, as Google's Lea Kissner points out (she's involved with Google's own privacy and abuse team):

https://plus.google.com/+LeaKissner/posts/JUEgFFJQWWC

> Look at the utter contempt that the Washington Post is displaying for free individuals here.

unfortunately a lot of news sites seem to have gotten rid of the comment section [1] [2] also if you look at mobile versions then most of them don't have any comments at all.

They say that it costs a lot to moderate these boards and that social media took the place; i think that it is because of the competition between news outlets : they are all in a struggle to retain some of their importance/relevance, and you are not quite as (self) important if someone puts you right on an issue ... nobody likes it when the customer questions his/her authority - journalists are no exception.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/10/brief-history-of-the-demise-of...

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33963436

Have you seen the comment sections at most newspapers? Even with Facebook names people instantly turn nasty. Sure the article has its problems but newspaper comment rolls are overwhelmingly awful.

Thanks to, among other organizations, the US Department of "Defense" and its 27,000+ "public relations" employees, even a comment section might be bought and paid for. It's known from the HBGary hacks that the DOD contracts the development of astroturfing software, or in their own language "persona management software". Ask Barrett Brown how kindly the USG took to that hack! It's the kind of thing you might find yourself on their "disposition matrix" for revealing!

I can't believe no one else has commented on the absurdity of starting off an article that way. They were flagging those comments as garbage not because of bad language but because it went against their narrative. In fact, the second comment is a 100% valid comment:

“She is a treacherous, lying, murderous woman that could care less of our rights and our constitution."

It's no pulitzer-prize winner but it's also not "[Your candidate] = Hitler."

Yeah, I noticed that too. Basically, that statement about Hillary is 100% correct. Sure, it doesn't contribute much to the discussion and it states contested facts without substantiating them with proofs or sources, but it's far from a bad comment. In addition, I feel the bad language is kind-of justified when you're faced with a prospect of a person like that controlling your country for the next 4 years.

I cannot say that the media is getting more biased - it might have always been biased, and I just failed to notice - but I think it's getting more obviously biased, to the extent that "normal" people (i.e. the majority of the population) are loosing any trust they had in media. This doesn't bode well for the media and for our collective future...

  > > “She is a treacherous, lying, murderous woman that could care less of our rights and our constitution."

  > Basically, that statement about Hillary is 100% correct.

Okay, I'll bite on this. I accept that all politicians have lied (as has everyone else), so she's a lier.

I'd be genuinely interested to see any evidence that points to treachery, murder, or her not caring about rights or the constitution.

I'm not looking for 100% evidence here, just any evidence that strongly points in that direction. (With citations to other sources, obviously. Just saying she has killed people doesn't count).

Murder - Benghazi (edit: not Benghazi, according to the commenter below), and she was Secretary of State when US attacked Libya. Plenty of murder happened there, and is still happening.

Treachery - AFAIK, other people have been charged with treason for toying with Top Secret information like she has (sending it to/from insecure email addresses).

Not caring about rights - she voted to build the Mexican wall (something Trump is often criticised for even suggesting), and said that US should "drone" Assange. (Technically, assuming the original commenter is a US citizen, that's not technically "our" rights, but given her statement about Assange, I'd imagine she'd also support "droning" of US citizens, as US has done in the past few years.)

Not caring about the constitution - I don't really disagree with her here (I don't agree with her either - basically, it's complicated), but I guess you could frame her support for greater gun control as "not respecting the constitution".

Multiple (7 or 8) hostile inquiries cleared her of any culpability for Benghazi. Why do people persist in spreading this nonsense?

I reeealy can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not[1]

[1]https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Poe's_law

I know what you mean. The irony is just too much.

I find all comment sections are easier to read if you imagine that everyone is being ironic and mocking the type of person that would actually have those beliefs.

There is a dichotomy on the internet between those who believe that the most emotionally powerful argument wins, and those who believe that if you use emotion in an argument you can be automatically discounted.

The two sides find it very hard to discuss things, and I think there is a natural tendancy for any discussion forum to gravaitate towards the emotive. Those that like unemotive discussion tend to withdraw once people start shouting, or they join in the shouting. Possibly because it's very easy to turn a rational discussion into an emotive one, but very hard to go from emotive to rational.

It reminds me of the opposite of evaporation, whereby the hotter the discussion gets, the less likely cold agents are to contribute, thereby increasing the heat of the discussion.

Would you like to refute their statements or provide your own view point? If not then there isn't much of a reason to think that the parent isn't correct in his analysis of the situation.

There is no analysis in OP's post, he just states opinions.

I value quality in comments, which is one of the reasons I come to Hacker News. It is not a waste of my time. Reading comments on Facebook or any newspaper usually is.

Wikipedia isn't a waste either, mired in a Yahoo Answers low quality answers. That is why I donate.

Creating quality interaction isn't easy on the internet - I admire every success.

Shitposting in the comment-section of a newspaper or indeed Hacker News isn't "free speech", it is just disruptive and destructive.

When governments and corporations engage in bullshit (in the Harry Frankfurt sense) programs to disrupt public discourse, the answer isn't to yell and scream in the comment sections - that only helps them, in fact. The answer is to insist on solid arguments against their gish-gallops and red herrings.