Hacker News Reader

Comment by 93po | Hacker News Reader

My issue with this content on HN isn't that the conversation is sometimes garbage, which it is, but that it's overwhelmingly people repeating the same falsehoods that might, at best, have a kernel of truth, but have been blown out of proportion to the point of just being not-true. There is very little interest in actually taking a step backwards, challenging beliefs and the propaganda fed to us by corporate news channels owned by billionaires, and trying to objectively evaluate information without "so and so is literally worse than hitler" knee-jerk reactions. If people could actually steel-man (I hate that phrase) actions and have nuanced views, that would be interesting, but it's basically only anti-whatever people butting heads with any opinion that challenges their narrative at all.

View on HN

I agree in principle, but these are the dynamics of every intense polarized issue and I don't think there's much we can do about it other than nibble around the margins. For example, we try to downweight comments that are primarily name-calling or flaming, in the hope of giving more oxygen to posts that are reflective, find something new to say, and so on.

At bottom, it seems like this is just how mass psychology works—it's what you get when the inputs are (1) human nature, and (2) modern media. It stresses me out too, but I have to remind myself not to fight battles we can't win. That's a recipe for burnout and worse.

Also, when the nature of an intense polarized issue about things of great importance overlaps into the things Hacker News is about, that's when to try very hard to study what's happening. What's happening with modern media is Hacker News-adjacent. What's happening in how modern world wars are fought is Hacker News-adjacent.

When the mechanics of how these things are put into play, begin to affect not only Facebook, Twitter etc but also Hacker News itself, that's very much Hacker News-adjacent. It's a meta sense where control of the discourse becomes not only the ground but also the figure.

Hackers are eager to think they, like the internet, will route around any censorship. If their ways and belief systems are studied to the point that flagging and argument becomes able to unilaterally censor discourse against the wishes of the hackers, that's when your action of picking a thread and taking pains to unflag it and attempt discussion anyhow, becomes the right thing to do :)

If it is any consolation, I don't think there's anything more you can do as a moderator to solve the problem, as it will require the underlying human nature to change. In this context, the problem is with what is called 'peasant mentality'[^1], specifically defending a bureaucracy that is being dismantled by DOGE.

[^1]: https://x.com/sridca/status/1846935493100888262

On mastodon I noticed an interesting approach: to warn in a visible manner that a topic is "sensitive". Not sure if that triggers less aggressive behavior, maybe its even the opposite? But just as there are instinctive red dots that grab our attention there might be digital blue dots to calm us down.

https://www.audubon.org/news/why-do-gulls-have-red-spot-thei...

I get your reluctance to do things you can't take back, but it seems like the emotional response to thinking your comment's being down weighted but not being told that's happening, or not knowing why, might be helped by being told why. eg if I'm calling people names but don't know or don't realize that's not accepted behavior here, someone with a persecution complex is going to think you're personally out for them and not their behavior.

I hear you and I'm sure you have a point. But my experience is that adding information of this kind diminishes some misperceptions but fuels others. I don't know is what the tradeoffs are and I don't want to do things that make either HN, or the job of moderating HN, worse.

>> it's overwhelmingly people repeating the same falsehoods that might, at best, have a kernel of truth, but have been blown out of proportion to the point of just being not-true.

That describes basically all posts about AI, so let's all join in and start flagging any HN post about AI.

> “so and so is literally worse than hitler"

Can you give citations for where you’ve seen these sorts of statements?

However bad Musk is, I’ve yet to see anyone saying he is “literally worse than Hitler”

it's an example of the type of knee-jerk reactions, not a claim that people are literally saying that in every comment thread, however you're welcome to see for yourself how musk and hitler are discussed in the same comment constantly. it happens basically every day:

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

There are genuine similarities between the current administrations actions and the actions taken by Hitler in 1933 in Germany that essentially ended their reign of democracy, and of course people are going to write about that and talk about that. Toss in Musk's loud and frequent support for far-right parties (including in Germany), and top it all off with a nazi salute on national television and you're bound to get a few comparisons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com