Hacker News Reader

There are two problems with this approach.

First, there are more comments that are either factually wrong or interpersonally toxic than I have time to reply to. Downvoting is quick.

Second is the recursion problem. If I downvote and reply "factually wrong", then some people (either trolls or mistaken) may downvote my reply and say "no, you're wrong!" To say the least, that doesn't lead to a productive conversation.

View on HN

As I don't have the karma to downvote, my approach, which is likely to remain unchanged even if I ever get to the appropriate karma threshold, is to simply ignore. My mindset on this has been (and not saying it needs to be anyone else's) that my parents taught me ignore taunts, bullies, etc. and I simply extended it to this. I don't even want to put in the effort of downvoting to give the impression that I find someone's post or comment worth the effort of doing so.

We bullies were drawn to prey who didn't fight back and didn't tattle. The harder our quarry attempted to remain aloof, the more comical the show.

But If I was factually wrong. I would at least know I'm being fact checked.

And I have no way to respond to a downvote.

or maybe you can select an option when you downvote.

toxic/trolling, factually wrong, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com