I puzzled for years over why people would say things like "90%+ of all comments" that are so obviously (to me) untrue. But now I think I know why: those kinds of comments stand out more. It is as if they burn a deeper impression into the brain of the reader, usually a more painful one, so one comes to feel like they're "90%+" even when they are not. This perceptual loop is hard to break out of, so I've begun to see it as part of the moderator's job to inject new information when people post like this, in the hope of opening the loop back up. It's important for the community to see the good in itself and not just the bad. Otherwise why bother to take care of it?
HN has problems with disrespect, incivility, aggression, but one must evaluate this from multiple sides. Every large, public, anonymous place on the internet has this problem, usually worse than HN does. The problem is systemic, but that doesn't make it hopeless, it just makes improvement slow.
Every HN reader I've met has a love-hate relationship with the site. There's something deep in that, and a lot to say about it, but here's one that gets back to the topic of this thread. In my opinion, the aggressive dynamics of open internet argumentation relate to the gender dynamics of what tends to make women feel more or less welcome in a place. An atmosphere of hostility—or anything above a certain toxic baseline—causes many people to want nothing to do with a place or to feel deep ambivalence about it. I have that reaction myself, and my sense is that women tend to have it more than men do. This is what came to my mind when Cadran wrote that she started Leap because she doesn't feel welcome in "shouting matches".
On a more serious note, I wonder whether it has something to do with the fact that on HN it is frowned upon to express agreement in comment form (that's what upvotes are for), however when disagreeing/expressing disapproval, it is accepted practice to explain why one disagrees (and rightly so in my opinion).
This could give the casual reader the impression that most of the interaction on HN is adversarial, simply because comments are more prominent than upvotes.
Interested to hear your thoughts on this dang.
Empty comments can be ok if they're positive. There's nothing wrong with submitting a comment saying just "Thanks." What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling.
I joined HN fairly late (just a few years ago) and my subjective experience of the rules (as they are lived) is that a 'thanks' comment is almost invariably countered with a snarky 'that is what the upvote button is for' response.
For what it's worth, the vast majority of my experiences here on HN have been positive, and I greatly appreciate how often someone with significant domain knowledge turns up and replies to me in a way that seriously challenges beliefs which I had previously taken to be fact.
I will also happily admit to be part of that dynamic, and I don't think it should reflect negatively on any comment, or commenter, or even any single online community.
It just seems valid to believe that there are other modes of communication, and that it could be worthwhile to explore if there are mechanisms to bring those to the front more often.