zlacker

[return to "The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News"]
1. not_a_+JU2[view] [source] 2019-08-09 13:48:19
>>lordna+(OP)
It doesn't really seem to do justice to the problem that all moderation has:

1) Moderators always assume the worst of people.

I remember asking one time about car repair online, and at the time, I had a repair that needed to be made to make driving at high speeds safe. But moderators and others seem to assume that when you can't do something 100% right immediately, you are therefore going to do something wrong. I simply wasn't driving at high speeds to make up for the issue - not everyone has access to the money they need all the time. I mean why would I even be posting such a question on a forum otherwise.

2) Downvotes are based upon agreeing with your answer and not especially geared towards how qualitative your answers are.

I've gotten upvotes for basically stupid answers, which have no business being upvoted ad infinitum for essentially being a dumb meme. I've been downvoted (rather than debated) for answers that others outright disagreed with. At this point, it really feels like online forums are a place to beat people's opinions into submission, which is something I strongly disagree with. There's a famous saying that states "If everyone is thinking the same thing, then someone isn't thinking." I hold fast to this comment, and I look forward to hearing why people think and believe different things, especially when they are able to articulate why. No forum I have ever been to has really appreciated this, especially in the face of controversy. This feels too much like a new breed of close mindedness, which I am supposing is not too different from the thought crime, which if I recall correctly was conceived in the book 1984.

◧◩
2. overca+Mp3[view] [source] 2019-08-09 16:59:16
>>not_a_+JU2
Voting, since DIGG popularized the entire idea, will always be an agree/disagree button. Not the intended see more of / see less of.
[go to top]