zlacker

>>vincen+(OP)
>readers reacted negatively, even violently, to seeing [...] stories that were placed there randomly

>HN users have an intense emotional relationship with the front page

If a "greatest 80s hits" radio station started broadcasting music from the 00s and people got pissed off you wouldn't say "listeners of this station have an intense emotional relationship with it". When they tune in to the "greatest 80s hits" station, that's the only thing they're looking for; they don't want to listen to random songs.

>>vadfa+B
So as long as something doesn't challenge our beliefs, values, opinions or prejudices it's OK.

>>bborud+t3
> So as long as something doesn't challenge our beliefs, values, opinions or prejudices it's OK.

You're trying way too hard to make this about bias. There are more charitable and simpler explanations, such as signal-to-noise ratio and the expectation that submissions to HN are focused on geek-oriented science and tech topics.

>>nuerow+u8
I'm saying there is bias. And I'm saying it because it is healthy to acknowledge that we're both capable of bias and denial of same.

The reply you are quoting is currently at -3. Voting is more about about affecting visibility than whether one agrees or not. Or ideally should be. Does this tell us something? Doesn't it kind of prove my point for me?

>>bborud+o9
I downvoted it because it's just a boring snipe and has no real substance. This comment, while ever so slightly more substantial, is still little more just some vague claims and accusations.

As far as I'm concerned that it's downvoted only "proves" that people tend to prefer more substantial conversation than this. If you had posted something of value I wouldn't have downvoted it, even though I probably would have disagreed with it.