Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle | Hacker News Reader

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle

news.ycombinator.com

46 pointsapsec11246 comments

>Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.

I don't understand how those two sentences are related. I've never heard a political or ideological battle explained as being "curiosity destroying".

I come to Hacker News to learn. If I want to argue without end, I go to reddit.

There's the exact same opportunity for learning when it comes to politics. The difference in discourse on HN is ostensibly the content, but we all know the thing that really separates this from other forums is the quality of the discussion.

I see them very related. Two people can have passionate tech discussion, but a political one can create rift and affect genuine discussions. It's subjective, but I don't find it untenable.

A "political or ideological battle" may not directly destroy curiosity in an ideal world. However, too many people have their politics define who they are and become defensive when challenged.

This can (and frequently does) lead to flame wars and useless discussions, which are directly curiosity destroying. HN is better than most forums at keeping this in check, but that's at least partially because when these discussions get out of hand they get shut down.

Because whenever there's a battle in the comments, it drowns out all the interesting comments and makes it hard for anyone curious about the subject to see the interesting points of view.

As a quick heuristic, if there are more than 150 comments, there's a high probability that it's descended into either an ideological battle, or an obtuse snark-fest over semantics or edge cases.

This is a technology problem.

It’s a symptom of an imperfect commenting system.

With a better system, just like in real life, I would more easily be able to only pay attention to the things I want to pay attention to.

> This is a technology problem

totally agree, but I'd love to see a technology that's even better than real life like a discussion site where for each post, users could navigate a 'discussion topology/taxonomy' (i don't know the real terms?). There wouldn't be a need for adding comments that are just restating a position, you would just 'vote' for the position. You could add a new position, a new reason for a position, or new evidence for a reason for a position. The meta discussion the topology itself would be interesting. It would rarely achieve conflict resolution, but it would force us to better define our positions/reasons/evidence/core beliefs, and maybe help us understand others

For better or worse, HN is a non-siloed site (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), meaning everyone sees the same things and is in one big room together. There are certainly design choices there, but each online community has its initial condition set and its pros and cons that flow from that. I don't think it's a question of perfection. It probably would not be wise to mess with those initial conditions—that would likely cause unintended consequences, so the bar to clear to justify it would have to be very high.

I've written about the pros and cons of the non-siloed format here, if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098. It leads to a rather paradoxical situation.

The louder you have to shout it, the less interesting it is, and the less interesting people find it, the louder you have to shout it.

It is regretably the case that holders of strong ideologies or political beliefs frequently are dismissive - "incurious" - of facts and arguments that challenge their beliefs, and often use many of the other abjured rhetorical devices in this list to champion their point of view.

I think it is pretty obvious. An ideology is something that has a very narrow set of answers to every problem. It can easily preempt much or even any actual thinking. On a forum one can easily end up in a screaming battle between ideologies that has exactly zero informational content. If one happens to already know the ideologies in question, and one probably does because there is not really much that is new in this area, one could write out the whole discussion just by oneself in advance and not be off by much.

Plus I don't understand why curiosity is the value of the community. Is it? There are so many kinds of values, and even a nuance between learning and mere curiosity. Recently black American experiences have been a conversation here on HN — if this conflicts with curiosity, then which is more valuable?

Or are we talking about the values prescribed by the proprietors of HN?

Curiosity is the value of the community because that's how it got started and that has always been its mandate. It's simply a question of being one kind of site rather than another. Does such a site have a right to exist? I think it does; the alternative would be that all sites must be the same, and that can't be right.

If so, it needs to be operated in a way that preserves it for that mandate. The default outcome is certainly not that, so we expend a lot of energy trying to stave that off, as one must when trying to escape entropy.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

The idea of "black American experiences conflicting with curiosity" strikes me as a bizarre formulation.

> The idea of "black American experiences conflicting with curiosity" strikes me as a bizarre formulation.

BLM and its concerns for justice is considered a very political topic. Black issues in America aren’t about to become an unpolitical issue.

An oft repeated argument is that political activist speech kills curiosity. There’s no transparent line to know when political speech is curious enough not to violate site rules.

Also, where does the mandate of the site come from? The president of YC? My worry is that the prescriptions of the site don’t seem to have any story for evolution.

There have been many threads about those topics (the situation as of a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962) and related topics. I particularly liked https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23669188 because it got so many comments from black HN users sharing their experience. Similar examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23540162

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564048

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23772359

There's plenty of curious conversation there. There's also plenty of flamebait and flamewar, unfortunately, but that's unavoidable when the society at large is divided on a topic—or rather societies, since we have the added dimension of being a highly international community to deal with. The HN guidelines are written in such a way as to encourage the former and discourage the latter, but there are limits to what's achievable.

HN's mandate comes from how it was created. It has its particular niche. I think it's a good niche that is worth preserving, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of the community agrees, since that's why people come here. In a way, I like that you're questioning it, though. If the argument becomes "HN should have a different mandate", this suggests that it's doing an ok job of fulfilling the existing one.

Why is my post penalized, and without any note to the effect? When I logout my submission disappears.

I'm an old-timer on this site.

The current topics are very interesting even if I cannot always say something useful.

I disagree strongly with a good number of people here but still think I have grown as a human to better understand some of the things I used to feel were totally ridiculous.

At the same time I feel I get some of my own ideas better across (easier to understand, less likely to hurt) so that more people can learn something from me as well, even if they disagree strongly with me.

In ideological battle, the goal is to defeat enemies. In curious conversation, the goal is to learn from each other. One is a fight, the other is open exchange. These don't go together, for the same reason that boxing and dancing don't go together.

This is obvious if you observe how people behave in ideological battle. They do not receive information from one another and then change. Rather, they wield their points as weapons to try to overpower the other side.

When the goal is to win rather than to learn, each side resorts to its best weapons over and over. In other words, each side behaves repetitively. Repetition fries curiosity. Since HN is for curiosity, we have to try to minimize repetition. [1]

In battle, repetition is crucial because there are only so many ways to hit the other side and you need to do it over and over in order to win. If you don't repeat, you don't survive. But curiosity looks for something new over what has already been said or done. Curiosity wants diffs [2].

Imagine software that could compare two HN threads A and B and output only the logical diffs of what was said in A vs. B. I don't mean diffs between the exact words used, but differences in the thoughts/feelings expressed. How much output would it produce when A and B are flamewars on the same subject? Virtually zero. That's the issue for HN. The best HN posts are the ones that can't be predicted from any previous sequence [3], and flamewars are the most predictable from previous sequences.

The issue is not politics as such [4]. To the extent that one can have curious conversation about political topics in which people exchange information, learn from each other, reflect on what the other says and take in any truth in it instead of getting triggered by it, and don't simply repeat things, such conversation is within the site guidelines. It's not easy for such threads not to collapse into a high-indignation-low-information state, but that's what we ask of users here, and what the site guidelines are getting at. We have to, because if we don't, the forum will burn—and scorched earth is not interesting [5]. Flamewars, especially political flamewars, have many secondary effects, and the chance of getting into a destructive feedback loop is high.

We've found that accounts tend to fall into a bimodal distribution: those that are using the site primarily for intellectual curiosity (and occasionally post about divisive topics as part of the mix), and those that are using the site primarily for ideological or political battle. It's not hard to understand why the distribution would be bimodal like this, because curiosity and battle are basically disjoint states. In battle you can't afford to be curious, and when curious, battle is not interesting.

In battle mode, the nervous system goes into fight/flight mode, which triggers reflexive responses. You can observe this by sensing how you react when you encounter the weapons of the opposing side on the internet. This state is incompatible with curious exchange, in which we learn new things from each other and adapt. Human beings require a certain relaxation in order to be open to each other in this way—again, anyone can observe this in the difference between when they're angrily defending vs. playfully interacting. The difference between the two styles of conversation—reflexive vs. reflective, closed vs. open—is palpable. They can't happen at the same time and on HN we want one and not the other [6].

[1] Curiosity withers under repetition: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu..., and generic discussion is intrinsically repetitive: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[2] Curiosity is interested in diffs: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

[3] The best HN posts are the ones that aren't predictable from any previous sequence: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[4] Some interesting topics inevitably have political overlap, and that's fine, as long as discussion remains substantive and curious: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

[5] Scorched earth is not interesting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu..., so we need to protect the forum from burning: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[6] Good HN posts are reflective, not reflexive: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Someone should tell PG, his last two blog posts were about “cancel culture”.

To be fair, I don’t think he posted them to HN.

Hackernews is not a personal blog where you could acceptably express your own personal political opinions

I come to HN to discuss ideas. What's the difference between an "ideological battle" and discussing ideas?

HN is focussed mainly on technology ideology, not a political one strictly.

Because idealogical battles are very rarely what a reasonable person would describe as a discussion. They're often just two sides shouting over each other.

I think ideological battle is a matter of the manner of discussing ideas. Hallmarks include: posting the same argument in multiple places within a thread and in multiple threads in a short timespan; dragging a peripherally related discussion toward well-known contentious issues; repeating popular catchphrases, slogans and talking points with little regard for how well they apply to the specific instance of a topic under discussion; using shallow predictable arguments of the sort found in TV sound bites rather than more sound and nuanced arguments; little or no participation in non-political threads on HN; refusing to acknowledge the weaknesses or downsides of your own positions; making lots of pronouncements and declarations rather than asking lots of questions.

ideological battle: Burn the heretics! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. ὁμοιούσιον! ὁμοούσιον!

discussing ideas: What do the heretics think? How much do we (up to substitution of vocabulary) agree upon? What parts of the heresy are worth stealing and rebranding as orthodoxy? For that matter, what is the relative importance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, anyway?

compare "WE DON'T DANCE": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23591306

In my experience on highly political threads, the battle is in the votes more than the discussion.

I totally agree. I tell this to my friends too. Not every forum and platform is to argue about politics. There are some people who do not concern themselves with these issues. Some such people continue working on what they love. Not everyone needs to be dragged into the pit of political mudslinging. HN should talk about FOSS, privacy and anything tech activism.

If only things were so easy. Alas, things are not that simple, at all. Just try to discuss a project which automates the creation of a whitelist for master/slave connections which you'll be using when you attend the black hat conference and you'll find out you just violated 4 new rulings-on-speech without having the slightest clue as to why - unless you've been following those maligned discussions on politics and ideology that is.

In short, when everything has been politicised it is impossible to discuss anything without involving politics.

Get your house in order, or enabling fascism will be a pointless exercise. Discussion here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/22/portland-c...

It is good to make it clear ahead of elections. Still, every piece of information contains a degree of such dimensions, intentionally or not.

Good reminder. Especially in US presidential election season, but else-while too: there are few places where ideological opponents can come together for a rational discussion. HN comes closer to such a place than any other I know. Ironic that is has been flagged.

Are tabs vs spaces ideological battle?

set expandtab

...though in my experience ironically referencing the subjects of common flame wars, with the intention of collectively rolling our eyes at how silly flame wars are, usually results in flame wars. Maybe not here though.

Emacs users, I love you.

I use both vi and emacs. I find vi quicker under my fingers, but more complex things are easier for me in emacs: compare-windows, keyboard macros, the shell in a window (especially since it became smart about passwords a decade or more ago). There may be vim equivalents I don't know of.

Peace. :-)

Somewhat, but hot as those flames burn, they don't bring up the same depth of life-and-death emotion that real battle does. When people feel existentially threatened—which is very much how it feels in political battle—we go into survival mode, and in survival mode there is zero ability or willingness to see the other side as human. How does that manifest in internet forums? As snark, as name-calling, as refusal to acknowledge any truth in the opposing comment, a willingness to distort whatever is said in order to get the upper hand over it—basically, all the conceptual equivalents to what you would do physically if someone were literally trying to kill you.

One would think that the relative triviality and distance of internet conversation would allow for greater feelings of safety, but in practice it's exactly the opposite. It seems to provide the perfect blank screen on which to project all our shadows, and so we end up feeling surrounded by demons: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., and since they're demons of our own creation, they know exactly where all our sore spots and vulnerabilities are, and keep activating them unerringly.

Who still believes in 2020 that technology isn't political? Have you never heard of the impact of Facebook or Twitter on our societies? Cambridge Analytica, anyone? It lead to Brexit & Trump...

Any technology changes society, thus has a political impact. Trying to hide it is ideological. Does HN promote this ideology only? Or does it welcome various points of view?

I just wish things would be enforced more strictly. If you look at the comments being punished, a lot of clearly political statements get ignored while others don't - even if they just correct wrong statements. It's the tiring and commonplace way of "ban everything, enforce selectively". Same with r/cpp r/programming unfortunately.

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to reading everything that gets posted to HN—there's far too much. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

If you think that one side gets consistently moderated while the other side doesn't—on whatever divisive topic—then you might be falling prey to the notice/dislike bias: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Because of that bias, all sides feel like the site, the community, and the moderators are lined up against them, and they make interchangeable statements about it (except for the bit about which sides are supposedly favored).

This guidance was missed 6 weeks ago when people wanted to talk about the horrors of police brutality.

The way I see it is if a person’s intent is seeking either sympathy or any social value proposition HN is likely not the ideal venue. It’s like the taboo of talking about politics in the office for those of us who don’t live in the valley where that is more generally accepted.

> It’s like the taboo of talking about politics in the office

How would you define "talking about politics"? Does it include talking about government? If so, all of the Snowden leaks are off the table.

What about policy? That seemingly covers universal basic income, entrepreneurship incentives, etc.

News stories about tech companies? Most of those are constantly in the news for enraging the entire political spectrum.

What about government clients, as it also relates to policy? We'd basically never talk about Palantir on here again.

I don't see any way to talk about tech companies, entrepeneurship, (technology) business, philosophy, or most other interesting HN topics without crossing into something that most people consider too political for office conversation.

If you are a general officer of a company and discussion of a political subject is necessary for the sake only of business continuity then it becomes necessary to discuss politics at work. That is an extremely narrow edge case.

Otherwise if you are perplexed at what construes a political discussion you are most likely looking for any excuse to knowingly engage in politics. This sort of deliberate dishonesty is one reason I refuse to move to the Bay Area where such behavior is commonly accepted.

I sincerely asked you what defines a political comment. If you have a neat and easily-applicable definition, I'd love to know what it is.

I don't have one, and I don't think most people do. That was my point.

I have no idea where the Bay Area part come from or why you think I'm being dishonest. Perhaps you interpret rhetorical questions as dishonest?

Politics has never been completely off topic on HN. It's a grey area that needs to be decided case by case (i.e. thread by thread)—which unfortunately satisfies no one, but no other solution that I'm aware of is remotely feasible. It's neither desirable nor possible to ban all topics with political overlap (which includes most topics, after all); nor can we just let all political flames burn, because the site would become scorched earth in short order.

I've written extensive explanations about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... If anyone reads those and has a question that isn't answered yet, I'd like to know what it is. Some good threads to start with might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396. Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869, which shows how far back political discussion goes on HN, as well as the argument about politics on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com