Hacker News Reader

Comment by jff | Hacker News Reader

I think, rather, that HN has a dominant point of view which tolerates small differences but otherwise will downvote and [EDIT: hellban doesn't work like I thought] anyone who isn't circumspect enough in voicing their different opinions. I definitely couch a lot of my comments in sarcasm or careful disclaimers to try and avoid getting downvoted, as I've seen what can happen if you say The Wrong Opinion too plainly.

View on HN

I used to feel the same way about HN, as being an echo chamber, but my feelings have shifted somewhat. This community does not like negativity, especially towards others. If you come up with a positive sentiment that expresses your opinion, it is much more likely to be voted up. Of course, not all things can be dressed up in positivity, but many online forums suffer from an excess of needless negativity, and HN is a breath of fresh air in that respect.

Agree. I feel respected on HN although my opinions are somewhat unusual in a number of cases. There are sometimes where I get a number of initial downvotes, but tell myself it probably mostly newcomers from reddit who just got their downvote button.

I chalk it down to HN being positive (and me being polite and not needlessly provocative), and I also try to help others who have been targeted by the downvote & flag squad as long as what they have said is somehow reasonable.

If you suggest that HN has low levels of negativity compared to others sites, I should just avoid most other sites. I used to read reddit regularly and at one point the level of negativity was just too much for me and I've been happier since I have left the site for good.

For a long time, I've been an avid HN reader. However, one day, months ago, I noticed that majority of posts in most threads I was reading on HN started with a variant of "You are wrong". It may be in some form that does not make it immediately apparent but once I noticed the pattern, it was hard to unsee it. After this, I just stop reading threads which have a lot of this and in general, I've found that the few threads that remain make for (relatively) pleasant reading.

I haven't yet found something better than HN though. So, I chose to stick around for now.

You're not wrong ;)

But in a discussion where you have an upvote button, there are basically only two follow-ups to an assertion which remain on topic: "you're wrong", or "you're right, and also". Anyone who wants to +1 will just click the upvote button.

Case and point: You're right and also...

"Me too" posts aren't worth posting so if I have nothing to add I'll +1 the comment I agree most with/is most accurate to my knowledge and leave it at that. The result being I have a lot more "You're wrong, here's why..." or "I disagree with [something said]" than I have posts saying "You're right, and also..." since I don't always have something to add. It makes me seem really negative - since nobody can see all the comments I've +1'd. Multiply that by every user on the site and things look more negative than they are.

I use "-1" for "You're horribly wrong and I don't have time to correct you (though sometimes I have time and will)" and "Trolling/Vapid posts". If someone is "a little wrong" I don't -1 them and will just post a minor correction.

HN doesn't "hellban" (or ban at all) people over opinions. Moreover, the two positions Dan singles out as uniformly against the prevailing sentiment on HN (anti-Snowden, pro-CFAA) happen to be positions I'm not too far from holding, and while I get downvotes for earnest comments about those topics, things generally level out pretty quickly.

If you have a belief that can't survive HN downvotes, to the point where you'll hide it simply to avoid those votes, you should consider how sincerely you hold those beliefs.

> If you have a belief that can't survive HN downvotes, to the point where you'll hide it simply to avoid those votes,

People with less karma need to avoid downvotes and flags because it affects how they can use the site - it affects the rate limiting they get.

(And because they don't know that they can email dang if they think they've been unfairly flagged.)

I thought you'd end up "dead" (hellbanned) if you get consistently voted down to negative scores. I don't know a lot about actual mechanisms of how karma and voting work on this site, though, so if I'm wrong about that I apologize and retract the "hellbanned" part of my earlier comment.

No, that's not at all how it works.

"Hellbanning" is a form of banning where the site takes steps to avoid tipping you off that you've been banned. It's ostensibly a defense against spammers and trolls, who will create new accounts after being banned.

For the past couple years, bans on HN are announced publicly. They're not automatic; the moderators do it directly. It's not based on your karma.

> bans on HN are announced publicly

For the most part. We don't do so for spammers or (sometimes) serial trolls.

Hellbanning exists in a subtler form, though. For instance, my account.

Top-level comments that are literally seconds old are typically posted about 2/3 down the page. None of my votes appear to actually count. It's been this way for several months.

I'm used to it, but it's still very annoying and I wish HN would actually acknowledge they do this.

> If you have a belief that can't survive HN downvotes, to the point where you'll hide it simply to avoid those votes, you should consider how sincerely you hold those beliefs.

I'm pretty sure that's not it at all[1]. I can see (and personally do these days) avoid[2] certain types of conversations because of all the down votes. It has nothing to do with not sincerely holding the belief, and it has everything to do with not wanting to expend the energy on comments that aren't actually going to be seen[3]. As you know, as a comment is down voted it turn grayer and grayer. Plus, if you're not as articulate as you wish you were, you are just going to feel frustrated that you couldn't get your point across.

This board, for most, takes up free time, and people tend to want to enjoy their free time.

1) in fact, that statement does rankle the feathers a bit - I've heard a variation that was meant to silence people

2) not very successfully at times

"HN has a dominant point of view"

I have difficulties thinking of HN in the singular - from what I can tell it is a group of people with pretty different views on most things. I don't think people get downvoted for expressing different views - pretty sure the times I have been downvoted it is because I've said something crass, irrelevant or just plain wrong!

> I have difficulties thinking of HN in the singular - from what I can tell it is a group of people with pretty different views on most things

It's such a relief to read this! Seems so obvious, but the trope of anthropomorphizing the community grows like weeds.

Sometimes I feel one needs to add <sarcasm> ... </sarcasm> because people just don't see it and will downvote you anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com