Most active commenters
  • lwhi(11)
  • mquander(4)
  • amelim(3)
  • Charuru(3)

←back to thread

I Quit Hacker News

(mattmaroon.com)
261 points cwan | 41 comments | | HN request time: 1.862s | source | bottom
1. amelim ◴[] No.1934459[source]
It certainly does seem that HN has become increasingly more political in recent days. Yes, I can understand a post on body-scanner technology and it's applications to travel security, but do we really need to see blog posts about how person n opted out, or how person x experienced an unusual pat-down? Yes, for Americans (and non-Americans alike), these are important issues, but HN does not need to become an aggregate site for stories such as these.

There is a strong commitment by the community to prevent the site becoming like digg, reddit, or slashdot. Losing focus on the topics that brought us here in the first place (technology, startup culture, and programming) is the first step on that path in my opinion.

All I can ask is please, try not to submit/vote up stories which are not particularly related to tech. It's not what I'm interested in discussing in this particular venue.

Or maybe I'm just in the minority. I guess time will tell.

P.S. Just because you put the word "Hacker" in your article/title, doesn't mean it belongs here.

replies(5): >>1934540 #>>1934611 #>>1934655 #>>1934687 #>>1934712 #
2. TomOfTTB ◴[] No.1934540[source]
The problem is the community can't really do anything about it. Without the ability to downvote a topic all you can do is watch and hope others don't upvote a story like that.

Which itself is a problem because the threshold is so low. By even the most conservative estimates there are thousands of people visiting the site every day yet it only takes a handful or so to get an item to the front page.

So even if 99.5% of the people here make a "strong commitment" as you put it the front page will still be flooded with all those TSA stories

replies(2): >>1934567 #>>1934674 #
3. gloob ◴[] No.1934567[source]
Flag them. Flag them all.
replies(1): >>1934598 #
4. NathanKP ◴[] No.1934598{3}[source]
Does anyone know how many flags it takes before an article is automatically deleted? I'm just curious as to what percentage of the hacker news ecosystem would have to flag something to remove it from the front page.
replies(1): >>1934836 #
5. lwhi ◴[] No.1934611[source]
It would be completely ridiculous to try to remove political discussion from HN.

Politics is involved with _everything_ the world has to offer; and more specifically, politics is fundamentally bound to technology.

The fact that people like making 'cool stuff', will always have a flip-side. We need to be able to talk about the way that technology is utilised and that (necessarily) involves political discussion.

Without this kind of discussion, people involved in the tech industry are destined to become unthinking drones .. consideration of ethics and politics is essential if technology stands any chance of making the world a better place.

replies(5): >>1934647 #>>1934695 #>>1934729 #>>1934850 #>>1935147 #
6. Charuru ◴[] No.1934647[source]
Any way you slice it, discussion on ways to bypass scanners is not that relevant to technology. More importantly, there are a large number of sites where 'politics' can be discussed, don't infest a hacker site with it.
replies(2): >>1934678 #>>1934710 #
7. The_Igor ◴[] No.1934655[source]
I disagree that everything that is submitted should be related to tech. Opposite is also true, just cause it is related to tech, does not mean it is appropriate.

In any case, here is the official NH policy:

"What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

8. rlpb ◴[] No.1934674[source]
How about permitting downvotes to everyone after a submission has had a certain number of upvotes (say 10 or 20)?

As you say, currently there's no way to say "there's nothing interesting on the front page" even if a majority think that.

9. lwhi ◴[] No.1934678{3}[source]
It's entirely relevant to technology.

Whether you like it or not, technology doesn't happen in a vacuum. Technology relates to people and society in a big way.

When usage of a device (like the millimetre wave scanner) is misguided and unappreciated by a large number of people, why on earth _shouldn't_ it be discussed on a tech forum?

It's not enough to take the view that 'I just make the stuff .. other people can choose whether it's a good idea'.

We all have a responsibility to consider whether what we create is going to result in anything 'good' and what 'good' actually means.

replies(2): >>1934873 #>>1934901 #
10. malbiniak ◴[] No.1934687[source]
All I can ask is please, try not to submit/vote up stories which are not particularly related to tech. It's not what I'm interested in discussing in this particular venue.

As a community, is that true, or is it "submit/vote up stories which are not particularly related to technology, startup culture, and programming?" That's my preference, but I also came in a few generations after HN started.

11. amelim ◴[] No.1934695[source]
I think this type of discussion is much better suited for personal environments. Strike this discussion up at the next HN Meetup in your area, or with your co-workers when you go out for drinks after work. Anonymous discussion of such topics on a news collection website will neither change minds nor produce any constructive debate.
replies(1): >>1934709 #
12. lwhi ◴[] No.1934709{3}[source]
Why? Why shouldn't we all be willing to change our minds? Why shouldn't we be willing to debate and explore a subject in depth?

Your point of view completely baffles me.

replies(3): >>1934785 #>>1934814 #>>1934865 #
13. stcredzero ◴[] No.1934710{3}[source]
Did you read the grandparent comment? The point made was that politics suffuses everything. You can't exclude politics. Robert Heinlein once commented that politics is like peristalsis -- the result isn't very pretty, but it's necessary for life and you ignore it at your peril!
replies(1): >>1934893 #
14. epo ◴[] No.1934712[source]
This sentiment, which I would caricature as "the hoi-polloi are polluting our elite discussions" is risible. Enlightenment and insight comes from listening to a variety of sources, not all of them agreeable. Set up your own invite-only community and see how quickly the discussions become stilted and predictable.

It may well be true that the threshold for stories appearing on the front page needs to be revised, but if you only ever read the front page then you are also doing nothing to select stories of quality and relevance to appear there. Perhaps you should personally be doing more to raise the quality of the front page in whatever direction you feel appropriate.

And yes, I am a newcomer.

replies(2): >>1934799 #>>1934944 #
15. mechanical_fish ◴[] No.1934729[source]
Politics is involved with _everything_ the world has to offer

I completely agree, but it is considered impolite on HN to call attention to the fact. Just as it is considered impolite to call too much attention to politics in many parts of real life.

And it is true, of course, that the impossibility of discussing certain issues on HN means that HN is a very poor substitute for the rest of your life. But that's true of any group. You need other communities, other activities, other obsessions than just one.

replies(1): >>1934779 #
16. lwhi ◴[] No.1934779{3}[source]
Impolite? ... really?!?

Well, I suppose that's one explanation for why so many people in society could be described as apathetic lame ducks :)

Perhaps a lot of people would like to question what goes on in the world, but don't wish to offend.

[..] and more specifically, politics is fundamentally bound to technology.

The fact is, technology is closely linked to politics. If you want to convince me that political discussion is out, I think I'd need more than guidelines re. etiquette to stop me ;)

replies(1): >>1934804 #
17. amelim ◴[] No.1934785{4}[source]
Perhaps you are misunderstanding my post, but I never said that people shouldn't change their minds or debate a subject (in fact I vehemently believe that they should). It's simply this forum is not a constructive place for that type of discussion. Debating online, through anonymous accounts, provides little context towards other people's experiences. Additionally, you lose the nuances of language and body language, which often leads to misunderstandings. Personally, I don't feel it's an effective medium for debate.

But clearly, you disagree with me.

replies(1): >>1934868 #
18. jdp23 ◴[] No.1934799[source]
agreed. Matt made some very good points, and i can see arguments for revising the voting scheme. but a long-time poster citing as his #1 issue the problem that "a vocal minority" (whose views he doesn't want to hear) is getting a handful of stories on the front page comes across as very elitist, and so do a lot of the comments in this thread
19. jdp23 ◴[] No.1934804{4}[source]
especially given pg's stated position that YC founders enjoy breaking rules (just not the ones that matter)
20. davidw ◴[] No.1934814{4}[source]
Because you can look up some of the same damn discussions from more than 20 years ago on usenet.

For instance:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_q=legitimate+use+o...

I'm sure it's possible to dig up more examples.

It just goes around and around and around. Please leave us our wonderful site for tech and startups and take the politics elsewhere.

replies(2): >>1934848 #>>1935109 #
21. die_sekte ◴[] No.1934836{4}[source]
I think an article is deleted when it reaches 10 flags (could be less, not sure) before reaching 10 votes. After 10 votes, it can't be flagged to death anymore.
22. lwhi ◴[] No.1934848{5}[source]
That might be political, but I don't think that has anything to do with technology.

I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Politics can directly relate to tech and startups.

23. davidw ◴[] No.1934850[source]
> Politics is involved with _everything_ the world has to offer

There's a difference between something that happens to be politics and touches very directly on subjects germane to this site, and inviting in politics articles of every shape and form.

> Without this kind of discussion, people involved in the tech industry are destined to become unthinking drones

Uh, no we aren't. Our lives do not revolve around this site and many of us manage to think about politics, economics, history, bicycle racing, and many other fascinating topics without discussing them here.

24. mquander ◴[] No.1934865{4}[source]
Your point of view doesn't baffle me, because you said this:

"Why shouldn't we be willing to debate and explore a subject in depth?"

Good question! I would be happy to debate and explore political ideas in depth. (That's why I hang around some politically- and economically-focused blogs, and I chat about politics with my friends, and I read the writing of experts.)

But how on earth can you call Hacker News posts about politics "debating" or "exploring a subject in depth?" They are the absolute opposite of depth! Pseudonymous, evanescent discussions, where you stick around for a few hours and a few comments at most; you have no commitment to defend your words or argue sincerely, and half of the commenters don't know what the other half said last week on the same topic. Could you possibly think of a worse format for "debating?"

At the very best I have ever seen, Hacker News debates are someone who sounds smart stating a reasonable-sounding position, and then someone else who sounds smart suggesting that there might be reasonable-sounding problems with the reasonable-sounding position. Then after a dozen posts about the position it's off the front page and forgotten. That is the nature of this medium. Usually, everyone just lines up behind their premeditated arguments and fires upvotes and downvotes at each other until they see another interesting post.

Places that are reasonable for debating and exploring a subject in depth: A small, focused community that's willing to build on their prior discussions over the course of months or years. Talking with friends with whom you have a shared, growing, and conscious context in common. Books, essays, and other long-form prose where you can present your whole position at once. NOT here. At least I've never seen it happen, and I don't see how it could.

replies(1): >>1934905 #
25. lwhi ◴[] No.1934868{5}[source]
Additionally, you lose the nuances of language and body language, which often leads to misunderstandings.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's reason to _not_ try to have decent discussions about politics when it relates to technology.

HN already has systems in place which make people pause before replying consecutively, which goes a long way to discouraging flame wars.

In any case, politics doesn't need to be about enforcing a point of view - it's about exploring options.

Net neutrality is almost completely political - should discussion about this be killed?

Copyright legislation is almost completely political - should this be killed too??

Limiting discussion to things which feel 'safe' isn't constructive imo.

26. Pahalial ◴[] No.1934873{4}[source]
That's bypassing the point. Discussed once, absolutely; discussed in hundreds of posts, maybe not so much.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+i...

27. Charuru ◴[] No.1934893{4}[source]
I didn't say you should ignore politics. I read real news, just like other people. I took offense at the parent comment's implication that just because I oppose talking about the TSA on HN that I'm somehow ignorant or amoral. Give me a fucking break, it's about the signal to noise ratio, It's about me being able to regard HN as my 'industry journal' vs random water cooler chat.
28. Charuru ◴[] No.1934901{4}[source]
What you're talking about are your opinions and your personal philosophical beliefs of only tangential relevance to technology. Discussing them is not what I signed up here for. You wanna talk about it? I have a reddit account, you know?
replies(1): >>1935574 #
29. lwhi ◴[] No.1934905{5}[source]
Books, essays, and other long-form prose where you can present your whole position at once.

So if someone wrote an essay about net-neutrality (which is almost entirely a political issue), that shouldn't be posted or discussed here?

replies(1): >>1934963 #
30. mfukar ◴[] No.1934944[source]
Enlightenment and insight comes from listening to a variety of sources, not all of them agreeable.

I believe the most appropriate of responses here is, no, not necessarily.

In the end, communities defined and redefine themselves, and they do so constantly. One way to keep the level and content of discussions in acceptable territory is to restate, emphasize or otherwise promote the original purpose of the community. Discussions such as this help, if each party isn't entirely focused on mindlessly arguing with other and actually try to understand where their fellow HN-er is coming from, I suppose.

Keep in mind that the sentiment, as you put it, of the grandparent does not necessarily imply the elitism you so readily cauterize. Like it or not, communities have a narrow focus, at least narrow in the sense that contradicts a sentence like "Politics are ubiquitous!". Insight and enlightenment in this particular area of focus usually has a prerequisite the deep and fundamental familiarity with said subject.

Your point about the front page I liked alot. I noticed I only view the front page, deliberate as that may be. I wonder what gems I might be missing..

replies(1): >>1935095 #
31. mquander ◴[] No.1934963{6}[source]
I wouldn't want it here with the reason being "so we can have an argument about the merits of net neutrality." I would hope that there would be something concrete, interesting, or new about the arguments presented in the essay, or that some recent current events applied to make it worth noting, and then it would be nice to discuss the interesting new thing.

That may have been true for the first TSA post about backscatter scanners and pat-downs, for example. But it wasn't true for most of the next hundred.

replies(1): >>1935232 #
32. epo ◴[] No.1935095{3}[source]
This "original purpose" ("charter" perhaps?) is new to me, is it written down anywhere? Don't communities evolve? Aren't they supposed to?

Or are people perhaps bemoaning the current state of HN just like so many old folks complaining that everything is going downhill and "it's not as good as it was in my day?"

replies(1): >>1936745 #
33. robryan ◴[] No.1935109{5}[source]
Tech stuff can also go around in circles, the problem with just ignoring politics here and talking about it on other sites is that I haven't seen another community that I would rather discuss or hear their opinions on the subject.

In the 2+ years I've been coming to hacker news I don't really feel the subjects have changed, there has always been broader political, economics, education topics on top of tech and startups.

34. JoachimSchipper ◴[] No.1935147[source]
"How to disclose security vulnerabilities" might be appopriate for HN, but "some technology somewhere is being misused" isn't.

Just because something is worth discussing doesn't mean it's appropriate here: I get my politics news from newspapers and my tech news from HN, and I like it that way.

35. lwhi ◴[] No.1935232{7}[source]
Hmmm .. in that case perhaps you're actually arguing against repetition and redundancy?
replies(1): >>1935401 #
36. mquander ◴[] No.1935401{8}[source]
Sure. But one of the excuses for repetition and redundancy in link content is "we can have a discussion about it," and I only think that's a good excuse if it's a good discussion that we haven't had ten times in the past year already.
replies(1): >>1935505 #
37. lwhi ◴[] No.1935505{9}[source]
Still, that has little to do with politics ;P

Or at least .. little to do with banning political discussion.

I fully agree that a subject can only really be discussed a few times before it's boring - and only a few more after that before it becomes downright annoying - but I think this is a separate issue.

replies(1): >>1935539 #
38. mquander ◴[] No.1935539{10}[source]
OK, I think we mostly agree.
replies(1): >>1935544 #
39. lwhi ◴[] No.1935544{11}[source]
Yeah - agreed :)
40. lwhi ◴[] No.1935574{5}[source]
What you're talking about are your opinions and your personal philosophical beliefs [..] discussing them is exactly what I signed up here for.

.. or are you claiming you only express facts ;)

41. mfukar ◴[] No.1936745{4}[source]
Here are some guidelines [1].

I've answered your questions; have you read my post? Some people (eg. OP) merely point out the community is deviating from its focus. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing and it's not complaining rather than introspection of the community. Some people don't like the end result and leave, others stay behind to "evolve" the community.

I don't understand why you're (and others, admittedly) being so fast to condemn the "old folk". Even if you don't agree with their style of writing or their attitude, they have experience (inside the community, of course) you don't and know its issues quite well.

[1] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html