The article itself was a bit disappointing because it focused on political issues. In my opinion the strength of HN in this regard is that it is both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right", as evidenced by the fact that a comment on a controversial topic can easily float near zero points while raking in both upvotes and downvotes. And even those who refer to it as "the orange site" still come back and comment. In other words, HN may be an echo chamber but it is a pretty big one with a lot of voices in it.
both and neither. Partisan discussions, or even any kind of bitching at all ... are outright discouraged. I often step out of line in this regard and don't always agree, but I'm also confident that folk on "the other side" face the same kind of treatment. Though frustrating at times, I respect that it keeps things clean and helps cut out a lot of nonsense, of which the Internet has no shortage should I feel the need to go find some.
EDIT - actually upon some reflection I think that I would have to respectfully disagree, and change my opening sentence here to just "neither". Extremes of opinion that are "off topic" are not tolerated, and this is a good thing.
In one sense it's a shame when thoughtful, evidence-based discussion is discouraged for being off-topic. But I suspect that's ultimately what makes those discussions possible; they're happening between relatively small numbers of discussants, in a space that doesn't draw in people looking for political debates.
In one sense it's a shame when thoughtful, evidence-
based discussion is discouraged for being off-topic. But
I suspect that's ultimately what makes those discussions
possible;
Thoughtful, evidence-based discussion should never be discouraged or deemed off-topic - no matter how sensitive the topic. ( People reading this, even 10-15 years on, might find the mores of this age whimsical, at best. )
The only reason one might find thoughtful, evidence-based discussion off-putting is to be on the good side of David Geffen in the hopeful attempt that he or she might be might be invited to luxuriate on his super-yacht, one day.
There's never a better reason than that to be economical with the truth.
I think most people would accept that thoughtful, evidence-based discussion should be discouraged while sitting in the front row at an opera, or in the midst of a professor's lecture.
What I'm describing is similarly an issue of logistics, not content. I'm not making a claim about sensitive topics, and I'm certainly not proposing dishonesty or the suppression of uncomfortable truths. The problem with off-topic content is simply that: it's off topic, and on a forum thread or the top of an HN post it makes on-topic conversation more difficult to conduct. Forked-discussion settings like Tumblr and Twitter are closer to a conference than a lecture, and can sustain popular off-topic discussion with less derailment.
The relevance of politics and sensitive topics is only in my second point, that places like HN which center on non-political topics can create particularly good discussions. I largely agree with you, I'm endorsing the fact that HN doesn't ban politics or sensitive topics; the rules of avoiding flamebait, grandstanding, and excessive derailment help to prevent pointless yelling while preserving good political discussion around the margins.
(As an aside which risks being off-topic: why David Geffen? I've never seen someone use him as their go-to example of sucking up to a billionaire.)