I’m not sure what it means. It seems like perspectives can be correlated with account longevity, but I have no data on this. Perhaps newer accounts are more likely to comment on politics-related articles?
Has this been studied in general or on HN specifically?
And it's an opportunity to say what I really think, without being judged by HN's faux-politeness criteria.
There's such a large intersection between tech and politics these days, in terms of their effects on each other, that the HN aversion to discussing politics just seems anachronistic and ill-judged.
However it doesn’t seem that humans have figured out how to effectively navigate our differences in the more ideological aspects of governance on a forum like this. Just think of how many times in a personal conversation you are happy to respond with nothing more than a ‘yes, but why?’ vs the same topic being discussed on HN or reddit? Or how much more information is exchanged in the ambience of that moment vs words on a page (and it’s still difficult). Online it’s nearly impossible and what you’re left with are echo chambers and vollies of insults.
For my part I appreciate the wet blanket thrown on those types of conversations on HN. I just haven’t seen them yield fruit elsewhere and i appreciate the harbor.
(1) there’s more new accounts than old, typically
(2) the lifespan of an account arguing politics on the internet is short - it’s too futile and frustrating
(3) good-faith sock puppet accounts (don’t want a non-anonymous record of political beliefs)
(4) bad faith sock puppet accounts (trolls, meanie-heads)
(5) confirmation bias - once you see it, you notice all the new accounts, even if the effect is smaller than you perceive
(6) new accounts are likely to be less HN-technical folks, as the site grows past its original audience, and they’re more likely to comment on non-tech posts in general
(7) the Russians?