zlacker

>>edgefi+(OP)
You're arguing with and algorithm that says if comments > points then downweight. It's to avoid typical internet flame wars, it's not some rejection by the community or whatever you're inferring. It's just that it rehashes tired and well trodden internet discussions that aren't very interesting. What would you have rather seen happen? It stays at the top so people can pile on about how bad climate change is?

Edit: I'm wrong about the reason, because the comments aren't more than the points. But the point stands, it's algorithmic, it's not some conspiracy against discussing climate change. It's that it's a boring discussion that doesn't add to anyone's understanding.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36187203

>>versio+L
Algorithms are implemented by people

>>stemlo+k7
That's the very point. What we are discussing is not why a particular post was down but whether the policy of completely shutting the discussion makes any sense.

You could argue that if a discussion is heated, at some points both sides run out of arguments and things like Godwin's law kicks in, so letting it continue is counterproductive. On the other hand, I saw interesting and highly upvoted posts disappear after just a couple of comments (because they were politically incorrect, criticized someone, or were in favor of someone currently out of fashion).

This "I dislike so I flag" abuse (by a minority) is my single gripe with HN. Otherwise, it's by far the best community on the web and I'm happy to be a part of it.