I'm not sure why you think it's strange. Nobody wants to wade through 90% bullshit to get to 10% useful info when the volume is high.

If the first five things you pay attention to are obviously incorrect, do you keep listening in case there's a useful nugget in there, or do you switch to someone else's conversation which isn't rife with those problems? Because you don't know if what you were listening to was 100% BS, or 90%, or 50%, but you do know it hasn't been useful so far and there are other choices.

Or, put another way, why are you conversing on HN when there's plenty of discussions on Facebook you could be contributing in, and undoubtedly some of them would have useful info? I think the same decision making process applies.

>Nobody wants to wade through 90% bullshit to get to 10% useful info when the volume is high.

No one wants to, and yet it helps in understanding what others' grievances are. In today's polarized world, sometimes you even have to bear reading through what feels as insane rants in order to understand what another portion of society thinks. I may not agree with certain political parties or social causes but I believe it's still useful to understand them. Even if every other sentence is exaggerated rhetoric, somewhere in their diatribe there usually is some hint as to why they feel that way

>Or, put another way, why are you conversing on HN when there's plenty of discussions on Facebook you could be contributing in, and undoubtedly some of them would have useful info?

I do make it a point to visit other platforms. I find different platforms can expose you to views of different groups. HN has a lot of high level tech industry discussion which I appreciate. But there are certain topics the community excels at, and others that leave me wanting. I find discussions on medicine tend not to go very in-depth on here, while on a larger platform like Reddit it's not uncommon to have MDs and researchers to participate. Facebook I can't speak to, I don't really use it because I dislike the platform for ethical reasons

"...plenty of discussions on Facebook you could be contributing in, and undoubtedly some of them would have useful info?"

Not in my experience.

That's GP's point. Facebook is so full of shit that most people will go elsewhere for discussions.

it's not just the angry part. if you say "vizio model xyz phones home such and such information, and here are the logs to prove it", I'll believe you unless I have a specific reason not to trust you as an individual. if you say "the entire TV industry spies on its customers", that's not implausible to me, but I'm going to assume you're just repeating something you've read elsewhere (and I'd rather just read that). it doesn't add any concrete information to my mental model.

I do find that the angry part does correlate pretty strongly with people who can't really back up their sweeping claims or are simply exaggerating.

Sure, that's true, but it's also true that it makes it hard to read and puts off anyone who isn't already 110% in agreement with what you are saying.

I generally put the ownership with the orator to use effective rhetoric to convince people that what they're saying is true.

I have interests in learning new, true things, but I've got options and priorities on what to learn next.

A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.