https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891470
People rant about how the Reddit downvote system is broken. Maybe this points to a flaw with upvotes and downvotes--the voters are given too little voice. Thus, they 'contribute' to site dialog less by creating disagreement posts to satisfy their own psychological need. This need could be something like 'the desire to express my opinion to a certain depth.'
There are plenty of longstanding accounts on HN which have not passed the karma threshold for getting the ability to downvote. Those people not willing and able to put the work in here are denied the ability to just driveby downvote out of crabbiness. Those invested enough in the community to have earned the right to downvote are more willing and able to use it responsibly and not just as a means to vent their momentary negative feeling.
I think the Reddit problem is a problem of culture, compounded by the human tendencies to a) express emotion more than real thought and b) take the easiest way out available. You can downvote from the get go on Reddit. I think that promotes a negative atmosphere because people not yet invested in the community are free to use downvotes to basically piss and moan. The minority that does care or know better gets drowned out. The negativity becomes intractable.
On HN, you are unlikely to earn enough karma to downvote if all you ever do is piss and moan. The quality of conversation here is rigorous enough that if you have the ability to downvote, odds are good that you either already knew better or grew enough from interacting here to not routinely and consistently just piss on people for momentary gratification.
The ability to voice meaty reasons behind disagreement, and do so in a genuinely respectful manner, is one of the strengths of HN. It has been weakened but is not dead. That particular strength can be shored up here. I have not heard anything to suggest that Reddit ever had that. From what I know, introducing something like that to Reddit would amount to a disruption of what Reddit currently is and always has been.
It is that meatier discourse which makes disagreements or differing points of view a real asset for a community rather than just a source of negative emotion or lurid entertainment. HN still fosters that meatier discourse, though somewhat less well than it once did. I have not heard or seen anything which suggests Reddit ever had that.
Discussion is often a growth process. Everyone has certain predispositions in how they frame things. It is generally far easier to frame things in terms of "I am (negative towards) X" than to propose a more constructive alternative. I find that one of the challenges of proposing a real alternative without stating what it is intended to be "against" is that people often fail entirely to see that it has any relevance to X. It strikes people as unrelated.
So let's say the OP spent a lot of time and effort to remove the negative framing and posted a "Best Practices" list for "How to post X on HN". It likely would not generate discussion (i.e. Feedback). The three companies which inspired his desire to write likely would not benefit at all since they already posted and there would be no future actionable advice (like "If you are preaching to the choir, you really need to step up your game"). And the odds are rather poor that anyone would bother to take the advice.
Sometimes, the imperfect, not PC framing furthers the real goal better. Even when it does not, sometimes a 90% solution now is better than a 100% solution later.
Not arguing with you. Just using your remarks as a jumping off point to my thoughts -- because it is easier and more effective (more engaging) than trying to make my point in some more PC manner. (I mean there is no intent to attack you or fight with you. I like debating ideas. Unfortunately, most arguments on the internet are ugly, emotional, personal attacks rather than a healthy exchange of different viewpoints.)