News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by henry_bone on Thursday January 28, 2021 @05:04PM (#25950055)
> I think what many don't realise is that it is precisely the "unfree" parts of HN that make it attractive. And by that I don't mean centralized technical or organizational structure, but rather stuff like a culture of downvoting destructive, inflamatory or snarky comments, a good and mostly invisible moderation, a strong focus on certain topics etc.

I'm over it. I see many comments that politely present the opposing view get downvoted to oblivion. It isn't just the "inflamatory or snarky" comment. Dissenting opinion is censored on this platform.

I made the mistake of reacting to it the other day and was punished for commenting on moderation. Fair enough, I guess, but the reason for the comment was exasperation at the downvoting of opinion.

And it bites that downvoted comments just fade away, so later readers can no longer consider it, or respond to it. Remember that I am talking about unpopular opinion, which may sometimes be objectively wrong, but not rudely presented. It's common for such additions to the thread to be obliviated through moderation. (I know about showdead, but only learned about it recently).

That's the thing about free speech: we often don't like what other people say. The price we must pay for that freedom is to be exposed to speech we do not like. It's a cost, that we must pay because we are imperfect. We make mistakes, we think incorrectly from time to time. So I say, let it all ride. On HN at least, the culture of thoughtfulness and intellectualism serves to curb the worst rudeness, but let us be willing to expose ourselves to views that we don't agree with. Let's be prepared to have the argument, and possibly be persuaded.

So the next time someone says "You know, I think Trump was an alright president, for <reasons> .. ", curb your outrage. Let it ride, and engage with the argument.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by justinboogaard on Thursday January 28, 2021 @05:16PM (#25950201)
I don’t think I would visit HN if the voting system worked like this. I like hearing the popular opinion, but I also like hearing the popular contrary opinion and very often - like with your comment - the popular contrary sits right below the popular.

What I don’t like reading is “zinger” comments - stuff like “X is bad and people that think X is good are dumb”.

From what I’ve seen - these are the comments downvoted the most. I don’t dislike these comments because they cause me outrage, they just don’t make me feel the same way that well thought out comments - popular and unpopular - make me feel.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by henry_bone on Thursday January 28, 2021 @06:15PM (#25950913)
Can I comment on moderation since this thread is about censorship and free speech? I guess we'll find out.

Seems I've lost a point. Someone took exception to what I said above. Not sure how I went wrong, but if enough people feel similarly, then my post will fade away. It will be censored. Make of that what you will.

UPDATE: I've got a point back since I wrote this comment. I won't keep editing this comment each time my comment is voted for or against. It's enough to say that people sometimes downvote when they don't like an opinion, or the way it's expressed at least, even if it is not rude.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by striking on Thursday January 28, 2021 @08:42PM (#25952515)
Although it does seem a little meta, I'd like to do you the favor of telling you why I downvote every time I see someone complain about their downvotes or their post being grayed out.

It's boring. It doesn't make for good conversation. It's not falsifiable and there's nothing to be said about it. You're just unhappy about it, and it just bores me.

Maybe you feel like you're being censored, but really there can only be so much noise amidst the signal. And really, truly, an overlong and doubly updated comment where you are telling us to have our way with you is the least signal you could possibly have generated.

There are lots of complaints to be had about HN, but this is not one of them.

And to be even kinder and open to changing my mind, I thought I might see which comments you were unhappy about having cast into the gray. Would I see some glittering gems worth rescuing?

Unfortunately (predictably?), said comments employ double question marks or otherwise read angrily, or otherwise are simplistic and disagreeable and bring very little insight to the table. (And, you have a number of comments that have not been downvoted, so it's not like this is complete randomness or an inability on HN's part to accept basic facts. There is a correlation to be observed, one that perhaps you're ignoring.)

HN isn't perfect, but I think you doth protest a bit much.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by henry_bone on Thursday January 28, 2021 @09:53PM (#25953149)
It's not my comments I'm arguing for.

I don't think I'm that hard-done-by. I'm referring to gray comments that don't seem to be particularly hostile, but are just, say, conservative (for example) in nature.

Perhaps I've forgotten, but I don't think I've complained about being downvoted. Today doesn't count. It's not a complaint, just an observation in a thread about free speech and censorship.

Thanks for the feedback.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by striking on Thursday January 28, 2021 @10:28PM (#25953469)
I've heard people 'just ask questions' or 'make observations' or similar a million times before, and you most certainly have comments that fit the profile of what you've been arguing in favor of. It reads like a deflection, as a result.

Moreover, this is kind of what I mean by comments that aren't falsifiable, that don't really add anything. You're not giving me anything to work with when you gesture vaguely to theoretical comments rather than specific examples. All I have to go on are yours. And yours make for very good counterexamples.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by henry_bone on Saturday January 30, 2021 @04:52PM (#25973360)
At the risk of flogging a dead horse, and in the interests of honesty, [1] is a comment that I thought was an example of one downvoted unfairly. It wasn't the first one I've seen downvoted where I thought "Why? It seems they just don't agree." And it probably won't be the last. But it is the first and only time where I've questioned the downvoting in a comment [2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25737065 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25739135

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by striking on Sunday January 31, 2021 @04:25PM (#25982702)
I appreciate you coming back to the thread to give an example. However, the comment appears to no longer be downvoted or flagged.

This illustrates a common misconception about HN's propensity to vote one way or another. Your reply came less than two hours later, whereas the voting isn't complete for a while longer and so the score still has plenty of time to change as the audience continues to process it. This phenomenon (and related handwringing about "is HN reddit now?") can be observed as far back as 2009, and likely even further[1].

You might notice that the comment you replied to (which I would argue is actually demonstrably factually wrong in a few ways, and yet) recovered from its time in the depths beyond. This is likely owing to the fact that it was at least tactfully written, so replies could be written without having to work around the expletive content of the original comment; yours did not, arguably because it was not.

Anyway, this all sort of sidesteps the fact that comment karma was never intended to represent the value of a post or how worthy it is for distribution. It's more like a temperature gauge allowing you to perceive honestly how your comment makes others feel. And disagreement is a feeling too. In the words of 'pg, downvotes have always been used for disagreement.[2]

My first reply to you originally earned one downvote. And I figured it would, from at least one person, but I said it anyway because I believed it should be said. And you have that same ability too. Don't let the numbers get to your head. Just try and have normal conversations with people and the points take care of themselves. (As an example of this, I broke even on my original reply after some time, and gained more in my second reply.) It's rare that people with the ability to read a room and at least attempt to be agreeable in some way end up censured.

Thanks for coming back to this thread! I feel like this became a little more substantive than it was when it began.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=721455

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by henry_bone on Sunday January 31, 2021 @05:26PM (#25983211)
"You might notice that the comment you replied to (which I would argue is actually demonstrably factually wrong in a few ways, and yet) recovered from its time in the depths beyond. This is likely owing to the fact that it was at least tactfully written, so replies could be written without having to work around the expletive content of the original comment; yours did not, arguably because it was not."

Yes, I did notice it had been upvoted. The fact that is was no longer gray caused me to question whether it was the comment I was referring to. :-) But it had to be, of course. And so I take your point.

I obviously went off "half-cocked", as I have done a couple of times lately. :-)

Generally speaking I appreciate your points, and I like HN.

Below your [2] link (the PG comment) is one [1] by a petercooper. I think I share petercooper's concerns about downvoting being a means of registering one's disagreement. If your opinions drift too far to the edges of the Overton window, then you stand to be downvoted. I don't like that.

I do take your point that comments that are polite and well formed (so to speak) tend not to be penalised in the long term. I'll watch for that in future.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=395197

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by AWildC182 on Friday January 29, 2021 @01:15AM (#25954613)
You're both right in a way, inane comments complaining about downvotes aren't substantive, but I also see a lot of thoughtful and frankly poignant comments bite the dust because they're just slightly outside the decidedly narrow Overton window of HN discourse.

At the end of the day, on a smallish platform like this, the downvotes do also hurt. Some days it seems more users feel like downvoting everything than upvoting anything and unlike reddit, very few downvotes immediately result in censure.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by henry_bone on Thursday January 28, 2021 @10:54PM (#25953663)
That's fair. Comments on HN don't have a permalink, do they? If so I would have made reference to one that I actually commented on the downvoting of.

Regarding your assessment of my comments, I'm beginning to wonder if your looking at mine and not someone else in the thread. I went looking for the "twice updated" one where I tell you all to have your way with me. I went right through my comment history and can't for the life of me figure out to what you are referring.

Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by riffic on Friday January 29, 2021 @03:04AM (#25955144)
every comment here has a permalink. tap on the timestamp.
Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by henry_bone on Friday January 29, 2021 @06:10PM (#25964038)
So they do. Thanks. :-)
Re:Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Fre... by aabbcc1241 on Friday January 29, 2021 @12:17AM (#25954280)
Maybe they're just collapsing/folding the comment and sub-comments, not really mean to downvote ?