>
"Such as...?"Ahah, not about to name names - the trouble with openly naming people who are opposed to MRAs/anti-SJWs is that the demographic is also very, very adept at launching internet lynch mobs.
Sadly the events of the past half-year or so have succeeded in silencing some people who would otherwise speak, for fear of being doxxed, swatted, or otherwise harassed (where harassment goes above and beyond receiving angry messages of disapproval).
If the people who have left HN because of the toxicity want to make themselves known, they should do that. It's not my place to direct the people they want to avoid straight to their doorstep.
A good place to start would be the top posters list and seeing who's still around. Many of these folks still read HN but no longer participate in comments. Many read HN and have their commentary elsewhere. I know some of them, I certainly don't know all of them.
> "you'd probably lose some value for actual tech and, particularly, tech issues discussions."
Yeah, this is where idealism and values run head-first into the brick wall of reality, and no one really knows how to fix it.
We like freedom of speech, we dislike heavy-handed moderation especially when it comes to things that inform our views. At the same time we have real instances of abuse, and we have even more instances where extremists in one camp can simply shout down any dissent (extremists, for some reason, have a lot more time to comment on the internet than the rest of us).
I don't think anyone really knows the right answer to this. We want to preserve intelligent discussion, but at the same time give minority views held in good faith a fair shake. The solution thus far has been for people to abandon communities with toxic demographics, but that hasn't really solved the core problem - it's just hit the reset button until the new community itself attracts the wrong crowd.