zlacker

[return to "Tell HN: Political Detox Week – No politics on HN for one week"]
1. tarikj+34[view] [source] 2016-12-05 19:44:40
>>dang+(OP)
I find this experiment a bit strange/disturbing, avoiding political subjects is a way of putting the head in the sand. HN is a community of hackers and entrepreneurs and politics affects these subjects one way or another wether we want to avoid it or not, and are an important component of entrepreneurial and technical subjects. It might be fine if HN was a scientific community, but it is not the case, and even then politics do interact with science, as one can conduct scientific experiments on government decisions, or politics can attack scientific community positions (e.g. climate change).

The way this sounds is that you are more concerned about politics as in people who take party positions and may feel excluded as a group when the majority of the community takes a different position. This is a slightly different issue i.e. party politics, and I think it is fine/a good thing, but it is also important to distinguish the two. This should essentially be under the same umbrella as personal attacks, as they are essentially the same thing.

◧◩
2. chriss+Za[view] [source] 2016-12-05 20:23:19
>>tarikj+34
I fully support this detox week. As someone whose political views don't align with the average HN reader, I often feel marginalized by unfair downvoting in political discussion, even though I have made my points in an informed and respectful way. It often feels like there is one prevailing slant on this site and those of the majority are free to push their views while the rest of us must either read it and ignore it or face the onslaught of downvotes if we express a dissenting opinion.

I'd rather see HN go politics-free forever. Political discussions do not enjoy the same level of objectivity that technical and business discussions do. Frankly, it may be impossible to expect objectivity within political discussion because our political feelings are so deeply-held and tied to our individual upbringings, culture, and locale.

Unless HN can figure out how to give fair treatment to minority opinions, it's best to exclude these discussions entirely.

◧◩◪
3. mattne+ic[view] [source] 2016-12-05 20:30:11
>>chriss+Za
The rub is, a lot of difficult conversations lead to what are effectively political answers. Take the amazon go which is on the front page right now. We need to be able to have a conversation about job displacing technologies, and hacker news has been a good venue for smart, civilized discussion on the topic.

I'm all for flagging uncivilized discussions, but eliminating discussions outright because they might make people feel uncomfortable or might turn uncivil seems like we are missing a really important piece to the news we discuss here.

Minority opinions are never going to have "fair treatment" by the majority. I've been down voted several times for my opinions and I'll take it again just to be able to have the discussion here.

◧◩◪◨
4. chriss+3d[view] [source] 2016-12-05 20:33:42
>>mattne+ic
Perhaps the upvote/downvote could be removed from political stories and in its place, an "abuse" flag could be substituted?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jish+fe[view] [source] 2016-12-05 20:40:57
>>chriss+3d
Perhaps upvote/downvote could be replaced with ontopic/offtopic. Or goodpoint/badargument.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. pera+0r[view] [source] 2016-12-05 21:55:53
>>jish+fe
Or remove comment voting altogether (a voting detox week experiment? :)). I'm a bit skeptic about how much comment voting improves the discussion quality... maybe it's completely useless, or maybe it harms more than it helps. A sort by responses may be enough if you are looking for interesting points.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. gus_ma+Ly[view] [source] 2016-12-05 22:49:40
>>pera+0r
Removing votes will transform this in something like the comment threads of youtube. The vote system is not perfect, but in technical discussions it usually is helpful to make the good comments float to the top.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. colmvp+sD[view] [source] 2016-12-05 23:25:03
>>gus_ma+Ly
The problem is defining good comments and having users actually follow that protocol.

To many, a comment that doesn't follow their personal logic or point of view is not a good comment. And you end up with echo chambers where only the comments that align with the majority of a community pop up, while the extremists (for lack of a better term) of a community are pushed to the bottom. Those extremists could easily be individuals sounding the alarm on something that's happening, such as skepticism for a story.

On Reddit and HN, I almost never downvote anyone because I think it's a terrible system that is too often abused and reduces the ability to have meaningful conversations about controversial topics.

[go to top]