This is no reason for abject pessimism at 18 years old.
I would think something like Gini combined with HDI and GDP per capita, on which the US only fares well on the latter. I found out there is something called Global Social Mobility Index, done by the WEF, and it places the US in 27th.
And this is borne out in emigration patterns and visa applications...
It feels like we expect to be #1 in every category and we're unable to recognize that the US has it pretty damn good in a lot of important ways. Envy is the thief of happiness.
Of course the US has less of a social safety net than Norway, a petrostate with trillions of dollars in a national oil endowment, and ~half of their GDP is from fossil fuels. I don't know that I'd want to move to Norway for the kind of "social mobility" that I'm after.
Thank heavens young Americans can look forward to a $63k/year median income.
Is pessimism a consciouss choice?
One can develop pessimism about pessimism without a conscious choice, but once you become aware of how negative your outlook on pessimism is, it's a conscious choice to not try to figure out the different meanings of that word and how important it is for the proper functioning of democracy.
Maybe read Orwell for a glimpse of mandatory optimism:
"The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one... Winston turned round abruptly. He had set his features into the expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when facing the telescreen.
I am much more pessimistic generally than I was 20 years ago. But that's something I work on, not something I accept passively as a fact of life.
Life is bleak if you perceive it to be bleak.
There are many other factors you could evaluate it on, though, and many of them are harder to quantify. Stuff like personal agency, status, leisure time, social life, community cohesion, etc.
- easy access to clean water
- sufficient calories
- safe shelter
- education (presumably they can read and write if they’re on Reddit)
- internet access
- free time (can’t be writing nasty comments on Reddit if you’re swinging a pick axe in a coal mine)
Many of these things can’t be claimed by millions in the world.
And yet, it’s one of the most cynical, negative places on the internet.
Everything you listed are reasons NOT to be so cynical
TRUTH.
The problem reddit has is the celebration of it's doomerism, even in the small hobby subs the vibe is still present. The highest upvoted comments are so nauseatingly repetitive and formulaic, ridden with whatever the contemporary dogma of reddit is, substantiated by snowballs of echo-chamber fallacy with pebbles of truth in the middle.
Which is to say, the feelings of doom are quite widespread. There's a good argument to be made that it underlies the rise of trumpism: people in the sticks feeling abandonment, resentment, and doom, and expressing it at the ballot box.
Now in the last couple years, both my sisters have discovered reddit, and hanging out with them is like the god damn /r/all comments sections all over again. So insidious.
15 years ago there were nice discussions happening on reddit, now all the comments are one liner stupid jokes from people who never even bothered to read the article and people calling you a bootlicker if you don't agree with every nonsense against Trump/Musk/some billionaire.
Also, more and more of them are bots which are trained to regurgitate themes that get a lot of engagement.
old.reddit.com##div[data-subreddit="politics"]
old.reddit.com##.linkflairlabel[title="Politics"]:upward(.link)
old.reddit.com##.link:has-text(/Trump|MAGA/i)
old.reddit.com##.link:has(a[href*="foxnews.com"])
But that's not what I'm saying, so there's that.
Anyway, everybody (barring the global ultra-poor) is obviously aware that their standard of living is much higher than that of most of history. This is not novel, not hard to realise, and certainly not a discussion-terminating point.
In the Western world every single generation since WWII has roughly speaking lived better than their parents. For people currently in their 20s, this is on track not to be the case. The "democratic normalcy" is under attack. Wealth inequality was reaching literal Gilded Age levels... and has now barreled past that with no sign of stopping. And yes, algorithmic social media running anger-maximisation machines on a planetary scale. Shall I go on? The point being that "medieval peasants didn't have microwaves" is immaterial to the discussion.
Young people protested Gaza, climate change, racism, massive wealth disparity and they just don't see the results. Governments, economic systems and societies just keep the status quo.
Getting older what I have realized is that the enthusiasm of the youth is born from the lack of experience, lack of responsibility, lack of anything to lose, and a position to really only gain from any changes. When you are young you are largely a spectator to the game, and just like any other game, your views will change when you become a player instead of an armchair expert.
As for environment degradation in general, just because prior predictions were wrong doesn't mean the biosphere isn't still headed in the wrong direction for sustainability. Maybe we have the right governance and economics to adapt in time, but that's not a guarantee.
Being positive about everything seems like a really privileged position. It also maintains the status quo. If you're Ukrainian, how positive would you feel about your country's future? How positive is Europe about NATO and it's future with the US right about now. How are Canadians feeling about their neighbor to the South? Are they confident future US elections will self-correct?
Maybe over the long term it all works itself out and human progress continues to the stars or whatever. Or maybe we're going to be part of a Great Filter intelligent species face because of short sightedness and powerful technologies they unleash. Or maybe we'll just muddle along with some gains and then losses. Civilizations rise and fall, we really don't know how positive the future will be.
There have always been wars and skirmishes around the world. Ukraine and Gaza are today's. There will be others tomorrow. Different tribes of humans just don't get along, never have.
If you think the environment is bad now, you should have seen it in the 1970s. Chemicals dumped everywhere, rivers on fire, cities choked in smog.
But the long term trend is always positive. Things are better now for more people than they ever have been.
We really don't know that democracy will always prevail, that capitalism is sustainable in the long term, and that our current global civilization is immune to collapse. We don't know there will never be a nuclear war or that climate change won't hit the wrong tipping point. We don't know that humanity's future will continue to be better off indefinitely.
Right. We don't. And we never did. What I was saying is that when I was young, there was plenty of reason to believe everything would go to hell soon... and we were wrong, things got a lot better. There's just no way to know.
The last Romans living in the Roman Empire in 400AD may have also concluded that their problems would eventually be solved and they would continue thriving, just like they had for a thousand years. But they would be wrong. Just go back to 100AD and they would be mostly right: they still had a good 300 years in front of them (so they would never see a collapse, nor their children and grandchildren).
So yeah, eventually things will undoubtedly take a very negative turn. The question really is, will that be in 10, 100 or 1000 years? You don't know, I don't know. But given the above , I think it's fair to conclude that by being positive you're almost always correct.
Ironically, the above comment scored 99.9% negativity.
I always bring the same example: if one of your best friends has troubles with it's partner you'll hear for hours. But when things go smooth they have nothing to say and you have little to add.
I'm sure many of us would take it much further, but I hope we can appreciate its not an easy task.
I'd say HN's problem is rooted in that many folks participate in malicious contrarianism.
And they are heavily moderated against negative discussion/ragebait.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3652533/
>specifically, across an array of psychological situations and tasks, adults display a negativity bias, or the propensity to attend to, learn from, and use negative information far more than positive information.
This is a human problem and it happens everywhere.
For any forum to remain positive the following occurs.
1. the forum population is tiny and self controlling.
2. There is a lot of moderation to keep it from turning into a burning garbage dump.
3. There are no other choices, the above two is all that exist.
So? You have to do that because it takes one toxic person to poison the well. HN is aggressively moderated to get rid of articles and opinions that don't belong too. Without it, it would be just a constant stream of self-promotion and politics.
The point is that in certain other places, someone (the moderators) worked to nourish a positive culture and it worked. HN didn't and it shows. I don't think that negativity is necessary to keep the forum interesting. Especially given that HN's negativity really isn't all that insightful. A lot of negative takes are bad, and many of them are written without reading the article, or by cherrypicking a single sentence and attacking that.
If anyone wants to get a taste what an unmoderated HN would look like, check out /new and see how much garbage is submitted.
In fact, computer science, electrical engineering, and mathematics are pretty uniquely toxic and we keep rationalizing it.
I remember working on a technical blog post for my company, trying to anticipate many of the possible HN rebukes and proactively address them as much as we could. And I remember having a conversation with a PR person who was genuinely taken aback by the hostility we've come to expect in our industry.
You don't get tech without negativity. And honestly HN is very tame compared to most forums when it comes to the deeply negative.
The problem with maintaining (only) positivity in tech is you turn into $large_companies marketing department. We have to step up and say security flaws exist. That companies outright lie. That some idea (when it comes to programming) are objectively bad.
Hence why the OP is here on the thread talking about what negativity means in this particular case, because it also counts criticism.
This is something we tell ourselves to rationalize bad behavior. How come that 3D printing forums or woodworking forums or car maintenance forums can exist without toxicity, but tech somehow can't? There are people pushing products everywhere. You can ban marketing content or set ground rules for it.
Further, performative cynicism really isn't that helpful. It's not insightful to hear that every company is evil and greedy, every personal project sucks, every scientific study is wrong, and every blogger is incompetent.
We're more likely to keep arguing here when disagreeing than to agree and add much.
And again, this isn't limited to internet but irl too.
When I was still visiting Reddit my subreddit list was short and focused on a few hobbies and tech topics. Even those subreddits had become overtaken with cynical doomerism and toxic responses to everything. For a while I could still get some value out of select comments, but eventually everyone who wanted real discussion gave up and left. Now even when interesting or helpful topics get posted it’s like the commenters are sharks circling and waiting for any opportunity to bring doom and gloom to any subject.
Engagement means money. Even if this is bait content then you get rewarded (on TikTok, X, YouTube, you directly get cash).
Even here controversy is indirectly rewarded here because it creates engagement, and there is practically no downsides if you upset anyone;
You get points for every answer that someone does to your comment, and the downvotes you get on your own comments don't offset the gained points.
These points have real utility to make money indirectly: the more points you have, the more credibility you have on this platform and capacity to push a story.
[...]
and it helps to bootstrap your project or grab new customers for free (at most 1 day of writing the bot script).
Let's say, you want to launch a new Juicero, and nobody knows about it yet, it's great to be able to push it on the homepage of HN, otherwise nobody is going to notice.
<1: Troll
<10: Throwaway
<60: Troll
<300: Probably a throwaway. Quality varies widely.
>500, <1000: Normal people
>1000, account less than 6 months old: Redditor, all content will be political or occasionally about Linux, most comments will be inflammatory.
<1000, >10,000, account less than 5 years old: Mostly normal users. Quality isn’t generally great.
<10,000, >30,000, account 10+ years old: Usually the best quality posts; karma and age suggest consistent contributions overtime without any of the personality disorders that go with being terminally online.
>100,000, account <5 years old: Redditor, all content will be political or occasionally about Linux, most comments will be inflammatory. Lots of flagged submissions about US politics.
>100,000, 10+ years old: Domain knowledge expert. Usually an older user with enough of a reputation that a subset of users know the user’s real identity. Will occasionally post absolutely unhinged comments.
The absolute key feature is the domain experts, not the karma. Any time any subject comes up, someone appears that knows everything about the subject and lives in the field. It’s the single best thing about HN by a million miles.
I remember a guy that had millions just because on any reddit AMA asked "tits or ass?"
You're right about reddit karma though. One of the good things about HN is that throwaway joke posts like that are downvoted/flagged/otherwise discouraged. I can guess the top comment for any given Reddit comment section with like 90% accuracy just because it's going to be the most obvious joke possible based on the submission title, and Reddit users love upvoting those for some reason.
https://fandomwire.com/karma-slapped-ea-with-the-most-downvo... (there are probably better articles about it out there, I quit reddit a long time ago)
I'm trying to establish, if you'll believe me, that I'm not whoring.
And yet, I confess to generally towing the cynical line in my comments. But that's my nature. "Atta boy", piling on, bandwagoning—antithetical to my nature. In fact I'm always suspicious when a thing appears to have no downside.
I can say too at times, I'll take a stand in opposition to what I actually believe in order to call myself out—or, you know, cast doubt. I suspect ego comes in to play too—it's kind of a challenge to take the unpopular opinion and champion it.
In short, I think if I generally agree with the sentiment in the thread, I don't comment.
I'm okay with that.
At the end, just saying that the best way to increase engagement is to increase bait / rage. Ironically that increases retention on the platforms too, so they don't need peace, if there are juicy flame wars.
Seems like the downsides are about the same as in other forums. It depends on if your account is anonymous or not.
> You get points for every answer that someone does to your comment, and the downvotes you get on your own comments don't offset the gained points.
I don’t think that’s right. You don’t get points for replies, you get points for upvotes. And downvotes you get also affect your overall karma, though you don’t seemingly have an upper bound on upvotes but I have read there is a lower bound of -4. An upvote on a submission seems to also be worth less than an upvote on a comment, though I’m not sure of the ratio (half? one third?).
> These points have real utility to make money indirectly: the more points you have, the more credibility you have on this platform and capacity to push a story.
I don’t think that’s right either. Once you can downvote and flag (500 karma?), more points don’t give you anything extra. Personally I rarely check someone’s points, only when viewing comment history or trying to identify spammers and other obvious bad actors.
> This is why I am collecting points on all my fake accounts, because once I have collected enough karma points, I can upvote my startup speech on Hackernews using these shadow accounts.
HN has voting ring detection. Though I can’t speak for how effective it is.
Meanwhile if you say anything bad about capitalism the comment is removed.
If that is an example for how your usual comments look like, I can assure you it has nothing to do with whether you criticize capitalism or not. A low-effort single-sentence mood statement is just not a good fit for the site.
I would tend to think that this goes naturally:
you get boosted by a circle of people you know, and who wants you to succeed, because if you succeed they will get money), so there is the incentive in some way.
but it's still plausible that getting a boost on HN is part of the package (but I am not sure it is needed, because of this natural push that you get from let's say 100 people around you).
What you said about capitalism is true, I noticed it too, and it sounds even strange to me, as we are literally on a board that is initiated by a capitalist fund.
The HN culture used to be almost exclusively a ton of nerds thinking that tech and the free market would be the answer for everything - but the last few years have served as a brutal, but very effective reality check for a lot of people.
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much of a good side to it all. Work from home maybe?
It’s back a ton of progress on many fronts. Counter examples welcomed.
IMO it's more the HN userbase has expanded, a lot, and now includes a lot of people who aren't the same tech enthusiasts the site had historically. Yeah, I know, eternal September and all that, but to put it into perspective: Trump's first election victory got 2215 comments[0], his second election victory got 9275 comments[1]. There are some mitigating factors here--iirc HN was having downtime issues due to the traffic in 2016--but HN was already pretty popular among tech enthusiasts 9 years ago, and it's grown 400% from that!
I'm sure some people have changed their minds, but any shifts (perceived or real) in politics on HN are more likely due to changes in the userbase over time, IMO.
"Eternal September" explains (correctly IMHO) why there are more people of a different background, but more people doesn't explain why it is very noticeable that downvotes and deathflags don't happen as frequently as before.
R/weightlifting used to be total cesspool of rumors and gossip about athletes and coaches, but at some point the sub course corrected and got more heavily moderated. The result is a completely uninteresting feed of technique videos that are actually just kids showing off their latest PR.
However, the sub also aggressively reenforces that mediocrity. I posted what I thought was an interesting video of Lebron James doing a weightlifting drill, (with much lighter weight than a competitive lifter) and commenters jumped all the way up my ass about it being off topic, but also how Lebron has terrible weightlifting technique. No compelling discussion about weightlifting for elite athletes in other sports was had...
Reddit (or socially generated sites) are really a mixed bag.
For the most part I pinned it down to casual engagement from non hobbyists introduced noise and anti information at scale.
For example in r/cars a site that talks about vehicles the vast majority of commenters do not own, comments become about the “simualacra” of having an exotic (comparing specs debating reviews etc). Where as Ferrari chat forum is about the utilitarian ins and outs of actually owning one (financing, maintence, dealer issues etc).
This seems to apply to all hobby forums when grow in popularity to the point where engagement rewards contributions from non hobbiests over real ones.
My final takeaway was that the nature of the internet being a simulation inherently rewards non real content over real. (Fake news is inherent to the internet) And karmic systems specifically reconstruct and enforce that simualacra.
I recently bought a pair of boots from a reputable brand.
I of course checked out the subreddit for the brand and while many posts are good and the community is receptive to questions but posts by weirdos with like a dozen+ pairs of $300+ boots dominate the discussion.
Can these people actually afford like $5000 worth of boots and all the accessories they come with it? Maybe. Maybe we’re all participating in their shopping addiction when they post pictures of their stairs covered in boots.
Either way there’s something unsettlingly unnatural about their posts, and I don’t mean in an astroturfing sort of way.
the mentally ill are, well, mentally ill after all.
The person is buying the 10th boot because of the feeling they get showing it off and getting karma on the forums.
This is crazy represented in watch forums where broadly in the real world no one cares an iota about watches but inside the forums it becomes insanity.
"Am I the asshole for leaving my spouse because they pushed me down the stairs and murdered my dog? He's also a member of an ultra-nationalist terror organization and doesn't put his cart away at the grocery store.
My friends and family have chimed in with mixed sentiments on social media. Some are praising me and others are telling me I'm wrong."
The account will of course be brand new and all of the top comments will be accounts that solely respond to similar bait posts on similar subreddits. It reminds me of subreddit simulator, it's bots talking to bots. My personal conspiracy theory is that reddit encourages this AI bait slop because it drives engagement and gets people to see more ads. The stories are like the soap operas I sometimes watched with my mom growing up.
Could have I created a new account instead? Maybe. Did I want to check if DSA actually works in practice and can get me back my u/Tenemo nickname that I use everywhere, not just on Reddit? I sure did! Turns out Reddit cannot legally ban me from their platform without a valid reason, no matter what is in the ToS. Pretty cool!
Back to using RiF with a fresh API key after that and haven't had any issues since.
>also revealed how boring it is without the kind of algorithmic reaction seeking content.
I also found this but realized this is a good thing(!) if your goal is to reduce Reddit usage.
That being said, a little negativity might be warranted in order to be a part of the discussion. Otherwise you're just opting out completely.
Sometimes, I will see a screenshot of someone using reddit or YouTube "unfiltered" and it's night and day, full of slop and ragebait everywhere. No thanks!
My only difference of opinion with you is that I don't find positive content boring. I find positive things exciting and engaging! Negative content just makes me want to tune out, for the most part, unless it's some cathartic or amusing scenario like the recent thread here about SO imploding lol.
YouTube is also similiar. I need to be quite careful what to click so "my algorithm" stays interesting and wholesome. If I click on any remotely baity and negative video, the recommendations algo picks it up almost immediately and devolves into garbage.
To meta-steelman: if one steelmans a bad take, then the negativity becomes even more valuable.
I'm as guilty of negativity as anybody, maybe even more than most, but at least we can recognize this as a vice which may feel good in the short term but do us harm in the long run.
It is 100% how adults approach life.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3652533/
>Most bad ideas aren't really worth arguing about,
At the same time you have to stop bad ideas in their tracks otherwise they spread like bacteria on an unclean counter, and the internet typically does a bad job of stopping them unless moderation is heavy handed. This leads to a never ending circle of discussion of bad ideas.
It's hard to let bad ideas go unchallenged though. Places like Reddit? Sure, brigades, bots—it's tilting at windmills to try to add balance there. But HN is a community I still care for. I still respect the comments (and commenters) here.
(No, commentator is not a word—despite what Apple's dictionary is telling me.)
(See also: commentariat)
harm??? so only happy thoughts from now on?
Bad ideas in fields of expertise need to be discussed to the extent of keeping the field free of bad ideas as much as possible. Biologists will sometimes point out why intelligent design is not a good scientific theory for example.
Reading online, listing to public discourse, etc. these days is like taking the Tide Pod challenge; people feeding you inedible or even toxic garbage that superficially looks like candy. If we fed others actual food with the same care we employ when producing "food for thought", we'd all be, at best, very, very ill.
When compared with what people wrote in the past (especially through a survivorship bias filter, where the best writing is preserved longer and distributed more widely) what we produce today seems crude and disgusting.
Even stranger, for me, is the current prevalence of collective shunning, the so called cancel-culture, that is triggered by the most diverse reasons, but seemingly never buy the negativity and toxicity of the discourse. It is always lone individuals leaving because of that. But as soon as another reason - political, cultural etc. — is added, there is a collective exodus and condemnation. twitter/x is good example.
We can rigorously test an idea or decide it’s not for us while still maintaining a supportive environment.
Often, the most helpful feedback isn't ‘this is bad,’ but rather ‘here is a different perspective to consider.’
Nothing gets people engaged more than making them angry.
I did something similar and ended up opening only /r/AskHistorian posts...
I was blocking subreddits recently and was contemplating if /r/historyporn because of the amount of photos of dead bodies and politically-charged discussions that sometimes unfold
You're also comparing Apples to Oranges by comparing zero tolerance records for subs vs average across all posts of hn.
I do the same as you. If any post is harming my mental health, I just must the entire sub. But then weirder and weirder stuff just keeps surfacing. Some of it is funny though; like it keeps showing me alien subreddits now, which I find funny because I'm pretty sure 65% of the comments are just satire.
In other words, if 35% of hn content is positive (or neutral?), compared to reddit and most mainstream social media, it's actually very positive!
Edit: I found the list of blocked subreddits if anyone is curious to see:
https://hlnet.neocities.org/RIF_filters_categorized.txt
Note that it also includes stuff I wasn't interested in at the time, like anime, and only has subreddits up until I quit, around the API ban.