←back to thread

Why I’m quitting Hacker News

61 points edgefield | 8 comments | 04 Jun 23 18:44 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom

I just shared a post about the world’s oceans setting record temperatures for 80 continuous days. After the post achieved 130+ upvotes and the top spot within several hours, it was nuked. My experience is that every post on Hacker News addressing climate change is removed or downvoted to oblivion. I don’t want to be part of a community that turns away from probably the most important threat facing humanity in the 21st century. Goodbye and farewell!
1. version_five ◴[04 Jun 23 18:49 UTC] No.36188319[source]▶
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

replies(4): >>36188428 #>>36188429 #>>36188726 #>>36189384 #
2. threatofrain ◴[04 Jun 23 19:00 UTC] No.36188428[source]▶
It could very well be admin, as HN has volunteer admins who do this kind of stuff. Since HN keeps the details of administration under wraps we should accept that such speculation, whether true or false, will emerge as a natural consequence to opacity.
3. stoniejohnson ◴[04 Jun 23 19:00 UTC] No.36188429[source]▶
"The cause is algorithmic. This is the algorithm.

EDIT: The post doesn't follow the algorithm. But still, it's algorithmic, stop being conspiratorial."

replies(1): >>36188488 #
4. version_five ◴[04 Jun 23 19:07 UTC] No.36188488[source]▶
Interesting take.

There is something called a flame war detector that I've seen referred to by the moderator. From experience this kicks in when comments overwhelm points as I said. I expect it's more sophisticated than that, and as I pointed out, comment to point ratio was clearly not the trigger here.

The next post plausible explanation would be a moderator lowered it's weighting because the discussion was skewing into a rehash of boring arguments.

I can also picture that some people flagged it (though usually this gets a [flagged] appended so it's unlikely. Maybe that qualifies as the community rejecting it and legitimizes the OP's complaint.

The least likely thjng possible is some kind of conspiracy to bury climate change stories.

replies(1): >>36188543 #
5. ◴[04 Jun 23 19:13 UTC] No.36188543{3}[source]▶
6. stemlord ◴[04 Jun 23 19:31 UTC] No.36188726[source]▶
Algorithms are implemented by people
replies(1): >>36188850 #
7. hdjjhhvvhga ◴[04 Jun 23 19:43 UTC] No.36188850[source]▶
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.

8. ttctciyf ◴[04 Jun 23 20:42 UTC] No.36189384[source]▶
Wait, so the nearest thing to downvoting a story on HN is to comment on it but not vote it up?