The detox/immune-system metaphor seems really suspect in other words. You could just as easily argue that there is a "virus" (the changing political realities, new realities dawning on us), and that ignoring the "virus" or "symptoms" will make the adjustment that much more traumatic, the later we accept that it's happening. Or to switch the connotation, perhaps instead of a "virus", look at it as a "disruptive innovation" - where if we act as an entrenched incumbent, we will be disrupted as our competitors rewrite the rules, and we will be too far behind to pivot successfully.
Letting the community process the new inputs vigorously might seem more traumatic in the short term but it could also make us stronger overall.
This just seems counter to the principles that I appreciate at HN.
There are other sites to talk about politics on. Personally, I'm happy to come to HN to learn new things.
Letting the community process the new inputs vigorously might seem more traumatic in the short term but it could also make us stronger overall.
An extremely active 3000-day HN user with excellent technical contributions was recently banned due to the way they chose to express themselves regarding a political story. This made the community weaker, even if it was a necessary ban.
>Our values are fragile
No, they aren't. If your values can't handle a basic criticism then your values are terrible. HN shouldn't be creating 'safe spaces' for the status quo or the new administration. I'd rather get heckled at Hamilton than live in a society where we worry about hurting each other's values, feelings, sense of entitlements, etc. Open discourse is always the superior solution.
If harm is being done, challenge it on a one by one basis. I see some very rude tones, borderline namecalling here, and other issues that get ignored by the mods. Encourage a polite discourse, don't eliminate it. I'd also be less liberal with posting rights. New accounts shouldn't be able to post on day one. A lot of these political firestorms are via 'green' accounts who may or may not be paid shills coming here and performing deflection and reading off bulletpoints or playing up typical 'whataboutisms'. Or regulars who post the same axe grinding over and over. Sadly, this goes against the religion of 'growth hacking' where conversations and new signups are the only metric that matters.
They were banned because of what they chose to write, it wasn't just because of a political discussion.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=sctb
I guess it is also necessary to turn on showdead in the settings.
I think they're concerned about things like community civility. Instead of the detox metaphor, imagine a community that is riled up about something, and is starting to riot - that is, to fight with itself. The authorities declare a curfew to get all sides off the streets and not fighting with each other for long enough for tempers to cool down.
Unfortunately, that analogy breaks down, because we can all go just outside the city limits (that is, to other sites than HN) and get all riled up again there, and be ready to rumble here after the curfew ends. Still, it strikes me as an experiment worth running for a week.
I don't think you should judge the merit of moral values by how well their proponents deal with being shouted at on the internet.
I don't agree. I think it's worth reading and trying to understand the perspectives of the participants. I wouldn't guess that any of them feel embarrassed by their comments. Instead, I get the feeling that everyone feels like they did what they must and the outcome matched their expectations based on the world they each perceive. I think it's instructive to review the episode and consider whether a different approach might have been able to reach a better result.
The opposite people feel the opposite: