Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

When people upvote objectively bad comments, we get evidence that their votes should be weighted down.

clearly, there is no fair, well-defined measurement for 'bad comment', except for the number of upvotes and downvotes. if now votes themselves were voted, and in turn those were recursively voted; we would end up in a ridiculous web site where diversity does not prevail and majority suppresses minority.

I am done pretending that the diversity you're alluding to is valuable. It's not; it's toxic and stupid. Let this "minority" go crud up some other forum.

While I think there are objectively bad comments, the attitude you're taking towards them may be a little unfair. People may have some opinions that are objectively wrong that can be repaired through allowing their comments to be seen and having us tell them why they're wrong.

I don't care what you think is fair. People who write or promote indefensibly stupid comments could be penalized, and doing so would probably make the site better. Paul Graham should try that (or try doing it more).

"yes, your last few comments and aggressive attitude do not seem to be bright from any angle. you are unfortunately unable to discuss reasonably. Your karma makes me afraid of HN in general; you must be penalized really, maybe get a karma cut by a factor of 100.", how does that make you feel? My point is that, attacks on comments and commentors are ad hominem, and wont work.

PS: i didnt upvote this article and didnt find it any good. As regular HNer, I am just alarmed by opinions to walk into "fascism".

Well, you come up with a way to identify "indefensibly stupid" comments, and then I'll get behind it.

Let's start with comments that start with "XXX is a jerk and YYY is a talentless shill".

Yea, that's totally fair. Unless we're talking about Rush Limbaugh or Justin Bieber.

This made me laugh!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com