> HN would be a useless trove of violence and hate if all [dead] comments were automatically unhid.

I read with showdead=yes and it is nowhere near that description. In fact dead posts are not even that common on most articles. And most of the dead posts, while on average low quality, are very rarely hateful or anything like that.

The question is are they few and not quite as bad because the shadowbanning, or in spite of it. Those comments can't be responded to without vouching for them, and I doubt most people are going to vouch for them just to respond, unless the comment has some merit. How many people just stop commenting because they are getting no interaction? how many additional posts are prevented because people can't respond to those comments?

Like many policies that might actually have an effect, I'm hesitant to say exactly how much it achieves without data comparing what it's like without it.

I read with showdead=yes as well and can vouch for your experience. You are not contradicting the parent post, IIUC, however: I take it seattle_spring was talking about how HN would be if it lacked the system or something like it at all.

There used to be one dead user that would post... wild racist stuff due to mental illness. But lately yes, I agree with this characterization.