This is the worst idea ever. I'm generally a pretty negative person for a reason. Negative feedback is necessary for anything to actually get better.
And who or what decides what is "gratuitous". This is a recipe for despotism and censorship.
And who or what decides what is "gratuitous". This is a recipe for despotism and censorship.
I can think of several ideas actually implemented in human history that were much worse.
> And who or what decides what is "gratuitous".
FTFA: "How are we going to enforce this? By asking the community to do so. Gentle reminders by peers are the best way we know to make the culture better."
> This is a recipe for despotism and censorship.
I don't see how that is any more true of the HN guidelines with this addition than it was of the HN guidelines without it. Could you, perhaps, flesh out the basis for this conclusion?
Negative feedback might be necessary for the commenter to feel better.
This a community. Was there a "we think we may have a gratuitous negativity problem" discussion?
Thin end of the wedge, perhaps. I hope not.
(From the article) "Too much gratuitous negativity might be the difference between someone giving up on a crazy idea and building the next Airbnb."
If negative, anonymous feedback here disuades and disenchants them, what hope is there?
Are we going to have a Safe Place section of the site, to protect applicants from all bad things?
Bad things happen. Mean people will say mean things on the Internet. Life is hard.
Absolutely. See Dropbox's Show HN, the slashdot iPod announcement, and every other worthwhile product ever. As a community we're pretty bad at picking successes.
(obligatory xkcd https://xkcd.com/1497/)