If you do not conform, you will be downvoted into oblivion. So people censor themselves as a result.
Is that true though? Conform in what way?
Who cares about being downvoted anyway?? I don't get it. After a few tantrums about it, I've realized it doesn't matter, I don't need to add edit: Could downvoters explain why please if they don't explain. Why do I care about my internet points, why am I getting sucked in to caring about the gamification? Why does it matter?
Say you are right, some opinions, even expressed articulately, helpfully, admirably etc are still always downvoted "into oblivion". So if you care, if it's important for you to change minds on it, try even harder to be more informed, articulate, irreproachable than the alleged HN 'conformists'. Hehe already talking like that, 'If you do not conform' has that heroic-paranoid-martyr sound to it that frequently downvoted/rate-limited people get. The people that ranted bitterly on the What has HN given you? page. They think it's what they say that's the problem, but in my experience it's inevitably how they say it. But every further downvote just 'proves' to them they're right.
And I'm not sure why you think HN would be better without oblivion-downvoting/flagging. More like Youtube, sure. But better? "Completely killed any chance", "giant echo chamber".. such dramatic language. Is your tone of such absolute certainty justified? Well, still there are people who think the dominant 'conformity' on HN is pro-US, anti-US, socialist, libertarian, and pro- and anti- just about anything you can imagine.
It is very real. And systemic.
When an unsubstantiated Docker or Kubernetes piece shows up as a story here, try asking a simple “why is that stubbornly getting pushed instead of alternatives?” and observe getting no answer to a simple “why?” while it gets downvoted under a pretense of being unsubstantiated, although the motivation for the story itself is unsubstantiated. What happens in reality is that you dared to ask a critical question which goes against ego-stroking and mob mentality. Or try asking or criticizing Rust or just mentioning Rust evangelism strike force to see just how much of an echo chamber this place is; it will be a fascinating psychosocial experiment on crowd mentality and ego-reassurance.
We are now at the point in our global societal evolution where why’s have become dangerous, considered oppositional, often considered confrontational, and that is deeply disturbing, because I’ve seen and lived through situations where such thinking leads. It’s a very subtle form of fascism in a different package. “HN” just reflects the wider systemic problems with group think dynamics.
But here's that paranoid-heroic-martyr tone again. Maybe it wasn't a "simple" question, but the frustration at these things happening again and again drives you to feel justified in petulant, angry accusations, or even just an irritatingly whiny tone. Doesn't it say in the guidelines not to question items, but to flag them etc? It's tedious for people to read that again and again. Just don't read them, maybe?
Sure, there are fashions in these things. And in all things. But why do you feel so superior and altogether above that, while using your psychobabble labels—"crowd mentality and ego-reassurance","evangelism"? The very downvoting you should expect as inevitable here is something you must fight and totally overcome everywhere, right now. (i.e. the hysterical quality people find so objectionable in SJWs) Really, 'fascism'?! You are the 'brave', 'daring' one huh? And they are the ones doing the 'ego-stroking'? Ah anyway, what do I know, I'm new here. Best wishes!
I see radically divergent opinions on many threads which are not "downvoted into oblivion".
The things I do see downvoted into oblivion are usually unsubstantive and/or uncivil, and themselves come from all directions, often from a similar apparent ideology to comments that are not downvoted.
But if people who would otherwise post in a similar manner to the posts downvoted into oblivion are censoring themselves, I think the functionality is working as intended.
Either the admins are turning a blind eye, or they're not paying attention. At this point my money is on the former.
The supreme irony of course is that lately the most recurring instances are about the memo that was titled "Google's ideological echo chamber". It's an open secret which cliques have a septic response to disagreement, and who simply wants to be heard but is treated as malicious.
Empathy for me, not for thee, and feelings of safety are more important than actual safety. The content of people's skin is more important than their character.
There's an obvious pattern of removing threads about contentious issues from the front page due to an overt automated moderation feature referred to as the "flamewar detector" designed to demote posts than generate more heat than light, judged by comments vs. upvotes on the post. This is reinforced by the fact that posts that are likely to turn into flamewars are also likely to get flagged by users who are tired of the recurring flamewars.
Of course, removing such posts from the front page is a completely different issue (independent of methodology) from bias in downvotes.
It is also pretty ridiculous to posit no link between the different moderation mechanisms. Being downvoted unjustly and reflexively is going to annoy commenters and make them comment back in defense. It sends a social signal that some view is unacceptable, which makes them look like troublemakers a priori.
It's also inaccurate to call this an overt feature, because there is no disclosure on affected threads. While I'm sympathetic to not wanting to stoke fires, it's fair to think the system is being gamed when I never see this happen to threads that skew in the opposite direction about a story that promotes the orthodox view. It will also create exactly the kind of unresolved discussions that guarantee a repeat until the end of time, as a self fulfilling prophecy.
The vigorous discussion should be a sign that people do want to discuss it, and I'm not convinced the flaggers and downvoters are representative of what the community at large believes. In the case of the Damore memo, informal anonymous surveys inside Google showed a very mixed landscape, in a company that skews very orthodox already. For a community that draws from a much wider geography, it is fair to assume even more disagreement. There is ample evidence of ends-justifies-means behavior from the people who want to impose their moral order on the tech scene, and pretending it isn't happening, under the guise of promoting reasonable debate, is incredibly naive.
If anything, these threads should be explicitly allowed to stand, leaving it up to individuals to decide whether to wade in, perhaps with a "keep it civil" preamble.
I didn't say it did, I said that the mechanism which detects controversy withoutbconcern for ideology was far more likely to blame than an ideological bias.
Obviously, HN is responsible for the existence of the mechanism.
> or guarantee objectivity,
I don't see objectivity as a goal in the first place. The overt standard for inclusion in HN [0], “anything good hackers would find interesting”, that which “gratifies one’s intellectual curiosity”; not “[m]ost stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon” [emphasis added] are inherently highly subjective.
If you want objectivity, a community whose overt standards are highly subjective is not where you want to go. But it's quite odd to come and sign up for a community with such overt standards and then spend a lot of time complaining about the lack of objectivity—it was literally what you signed up for.
> Being downvoted unjustly and reflexively is going to annoy commenters and make them comment back in defense.
Commenting on downvotes is explicitly against the commenting guidelines. Downvotes do not, under any circumstances, compel responses, nor will they ever produce responses from people following the rules of the community.
To the extent that people are positing about downvotes they or others have recieved, they are deliberately and wantonly violating the norms of the community by so doing (it's also quite stupid, even aside from the norms, to do so quickly because on controversial topics inappropriate downvotes are quite often negated within a few hours.)
> The vigorous discussion should be a sign that people do want to discuss it
Which they can (and do) continue to do, and if you want to catch those ongoing controversies you can browse in “comments” view instead of the front page. The front page is for things that generate more light than heat. You can choose your view based on your preferences.
Having seen some atrocious perspectives and opinions and Hacker News, being able to challenge some one or offer a rebuttal that doesn't turn into a comment storm is important. I don't want to engage with a troll. I want to give them a down vote and hope they're flagged and removed more often than not (I can't down vote anyone yet...).
But, there's a fine line between down voting some one because they're offensive, obtuse or obnoxious and disagreeing with some one's opinion.
I don't agree with you. In fact I outright disagree with your opinion on HN becoming an echo chamber. I believe HN is far an echo chamber, I also think it's far more diverse than most. But naturally and organically the opinions here tend to confirm with a certain bias and I like to think that's because we here on HN take more time to discuss our conversations and perspectives than the echo chambers you find on Reddit or on Facebook.
I want to believe HN is more in line with a common good, a common ideal and common truth of humanity (you can call me out on being naive here if you wish, I'm feeling more optimistic today than I normally do and I don't know why but let's let sleeping dogs lie, my cynicism is usually relentless...).
So, yeah. I disagree with you. But I wouldn't down vote you. Even if I could.
Edit: poor choice of words, sentence structure, I rushed it all to get it out in time in the hope one day I can get to 500 karma and down vote trolls.
I wouldn't say its a black and white issue. It heavily depends on the topic. For example the Google Memo. Even the slightest hint that someone agrees (on specific points) with damore was a guarantee for downvotes. In that case i would say HN reflects some sort of echo chamber.
I don't think different people voting in opposite directions is a sign of an echo chamber.
Which specific points? Because looking at the recent 782 (currently) thread on him losing the NLRB case [0], I don't see many posts downvoted to gray on any side, with plenty of people posting things which are generally supportive of Damore without being downvoted.
And HN is not really an echo chamber, there is an substantial audience for right-wing conservative thought, as per my observation.
Also asking questions about the article can get you downvoted.