That's not to pick on HN, since this is a common problem. Neither do I have a silver bullet solution, but the issue remains, and it's a huge issue. Evolution of norms, for better or worse, is suppressed to the extent that big communication platforms suppress controversy. The whole concept of post and comment votes does this by definition.
Most of the time though, people arguing controversial topics phrase them so poorly or include heavy handed emotions so that their arguments have no shot of being fairly interpreted by anyone else.
People always reach immediately for the conclusion that their controversial-opinion comments are getting moderated because people dislike their controversial opinion—either because of groupthink in the community or because the admins are hostile to their views. Most of the time, though, they've larded their comments pre-emptively with some sort of hostility, snark, name-calling, or other aggression—no doubt because they expect to be opposed and want to make it clear they already know that, don't care what the sheeple think, and so on.
Much of the response to those comments is actually a product of those secondary mixins. Forgive the gross analogy, but it's as if someone serves a shit milkshake and when it's rejected, say, "you just hate dairy products" or "this community is so biased against milkshakes".
If you start instead from the principle that the value of a comment is the expected value of the subthread it forms the root of [1], then a commenter is responsible for the effects of their comments [2] – or at least the predictable effects. From that it follows that there's a greater burden on the commenter who's expressing a contrarian view [3]. The more contrarian the view—the further it falls outside the community's tolerance—the more responsibility that commenter has for not triggering degenerative effects like flamewars.
This may be counterintuitive, because we're used to thinking in terms of atomic individual responsibility, but it's a model that actually works. Threads are molecules, not atoms—they're a cocreation, like one of those drawing games where each person fills in part of a shared picture [4], or like a dance—people respond to the other's movements. A good dancer takes the other(s) into account.
It may also seem unfair that the one with the more contrarian view is more responsible for what happens—especially because they're already under greater pressure than the one whose views agree with the surround. But fair or not, this is the way that communication works. If you're trying to deliver challenging information to someone, you have to take the listener into account—you have to regulate what you say by what that person is capable to hear and to tolerate. Otherwise you're predictably going to dysregulate them and ruin the conversation.
[editing...]
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This sounds similar to the “yelling fire” censorship test
it’s not that we censor discussing combustion methods, there would be no effect if everyone else was also yelling fire
But people were watching a movie and now the community’s experience has been ruined (with potential for harm), in exchange for nothing of value
I particularly liked his tweet about how site/network owners just wish everyone would be friendly and have great discussions.
I'd like to hear your thoughts/experience as well.
There are a few sacred cows here (I won't mention them by name, though the do exist), but I have earned my rep by posting mostly contrarian opinions, and I almost always have quite a few net upvotes - sometimes dozens. It's not too difficult: First, I cite facts that back up my claims from sources whose narratives would typically go against my argument. I cite the New York Times, Washington Post, the Atlantic, NPR, CNN, etc.; I only rarely cite Fox News, and never cite anything to the right of Fox. Second, I really internalize the rules about good faith, not attacking the weakest form of an argument, not cross-examining, etc. Sometimes I have a draft that has my emotions, and I'll edit it to make it more rational before posting. Third, I ask open-ended questions to allow myself to be wrong in the mind of other commenters. Instead of just asserting that some of my ultra-contrarian opinions are the only way anyone can see an issue, I may propose a question. By doing that, I have at times seen some excluded middle I hadn't considered, and my opinion becomes more nuanced. Fourth, I often will begin replying and then delete my reply because I know it won't add anything. This is the hardest one to do, but sometimes it's just the way you have to go. Some differences are merely tastes and preferences, and I'm not going to change the dominant tastes and preferences of the Valley on HN. I can only point out some of the consequences.
The content moderation rules and system here have encouraged me to write better and more clearly about my contrarian opinions, and have made me more persuasive. HN can be a crap-show at times, but in my experience, it's often some of the best commentary on the Internet.
That scares me. Today's norms are tomorrow's taboos. The dangers of conforming and shaping everyone into the least controversial opinions and topics are self evident. It's an issue on this very forum. "Go elsewhere" doesn't solve the problem because that policy still contributes to a self-perpetuating feedback loop that amplifies norms, which often happen to be corrupt and related to the interests of big (corrupt) commercial and political powers.