zlacker

>>stable+(OP)
Honest question, does HN feel unwelcoming or uncomfortable for women? In particular: “I’ve found that some conversations online escalate to shouting matches quickly” do female HN users identify this with HN? Not saying Leap shouldn’t exist or anything, I’m just wondering if HN has these particular issues that I haven’t personally recognised.

>>mcinty+bE
There's a certain style to HN discussions that feels completely natural if you've been here long enough, yet may appear excessively antagonistic to people not used to it.

Specifically, 90%+ of all comments are of the "you're wrong, because..." variety. Note that there's nothing wrong with such comments: they make up a large part of any group's pub conversations as well, for example.

Yet there are other sentiments that are possibly underrepresented on HN: self-doubt, questions, or comments expanding on others' ideas come to mind.

None of these can obviously be categorised as singularity "male" or "female". And there isn't much shouting going on, even metaphorically. Yet it may, from time to time, be a good idea to step back and examine common assumptions,

>>matt40+4L
I don't think you're being fair to the community here. It's true that such comments exist, and so do many other kinds. Many users share personal experiences. Many express vulnerability. Self-doubt, questions, and comments expanding on others' ideas are highly represented here, and we value them tremendously.

I puzzled for years over why people would say things like "90%+ of all comments" that are so obviously (to me) untrue. But now I think I know why: those kinds of comments stand out more. It is as if they burn a deeper impression into the brain of the reader, usually a more painful one, so one comes to feel like they're "90%+" even when they are not. This perceptual loop is hard to break out of, so I've begun to see it as part of the moderator's job to inject new information when people post like this, in the hope of opening the loop back up. It's important for the community to see the good in itself and not just the bad. Otherwise why bother to take care of it?

HN has problems with disrespect, incivility, aggression, but one must evaluate this from multiple sides. Every large, public, anonymous place on the internet has this problem, usually worse than HN does. The problem is systemic, but that doesn't make it hopeless, it just makes improvement slow.

Every HN reader I've met has a love-hate relationship with the site. There's something deep in that, and a lot to say about it, but here's one that gets back to the topic of this thread. In my opinion, the aggressive dynamics of open internet argumentation relate to the gender dynamics of what tends to make women feel more or less welcome in a place. An atmosphere of hostility—or anything above a certain toxic baseline—causes many people to want nothing to do with a place or to feel deep ambivalence about it. I have that reaction myself, and my sense is that women tend to have it more than men do. This is what came to my mind when Cadran wrote that she started Leap because she doesn't feel welcome in "shouting matches".

>>dang+YL
I'm sorry if my comment was understood as criticising perceived "aggressiveness", and I agree that the specific complaint about "shouting matches" certainly does not accurately describe HN. Although aggressiveness can be part of what I was talking about, I'd rather use the term "contrariness"–one you have also used on occasion to describe the typical commenter, if I recall correctly.

I will also happily admit to be part of that dynamic, and I don't think it should reflect negatively on any comment, or commenter, or even any single online community.

It just seems valid to believe that there are other modes of communication, and that it could be worthwhile to explore if there are mechanisms to bring those to the front more often.