Hacker News Reader

Comment by xwdv | Hacker News Reader

What do you see

I see a lot of comments advocating for more regulation, more policies, more government control, less individual freedom. Many that argue the other way are down voted.

Do you disagree with those comments?

I ask because Dang often links to a collection of threads where people make this type claim[1]. If we’re to believe him, the bias you’re perceiving may not actually exist, and may actually be a reflection of your own personal biases.

Not sure whether you relate to that, but I definitely could. Since learning of this, I actually view Hacker News as roughly politically neutral.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922311

It's just what I (remember) seeing. My own views and biases may certainly have an effect on that.

Note that the comments Dang linked to are making claims that HN is this or HN is that. I only claim that I saw things. It's a difference, but possibly a small difference, I guess.

Times have changed greatly since the Great Recession. Individuals in general are more materially dispossessed than they were in the end of history '90s. Even well-paid hackers in San Francisco or Seattle can see poverty all around them. Meanwhile, corporate wealth and power have risen to the stuff of cyberpunk fantasies. Less luxury, nowadays, to be an absolutist individualist. Not to mention, libertarianism as a American political ideology has fallen by the wayside with the failure of the Ron Paul campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Maybe libertarians just downvote less? I mean, nominally they should?

Why should they downvote less?

Because they believe people should have freedom to say what they want. Most downvotes seem to come from people vouching for big government regulation, oddly enough.

Down voting is a way of expressing disagreement. Nothing anti libertarian about that.

I tend libertarian sometimes. Downvoting on HN reduces the readability of the post, so if I downvoted posts I disagreed with, it would be to reduce the influence of people that disagree with me. I'm not very comfortable with that, to be honest. I have opinions, but they can't all be correct, so reducing the ability of the community to read posts that contradict my own seems counter-productive, and imposes the will of the collective (through voting) on the individual by reducing the reach of their speech. I feel this is somewhat anti-libertarian.

Because of this, I reserve downvotes not for disagreement, but when I think someone is making an argument in bad faith, particularly if it's bullshit. In particular, some posts on HN make bold, unsubstantiated claims and tend to put the onus on the community to debunk those claims. I downvote those posts when I sense the "bullshit asymmetry principle"[0], in action because it's a tax on folks that post thoughtful comments for the benefit or amusement of the bullshitter. The link has more context, but the idea can be summarized simply:

> ...the “bullshit asymmetry principle,” holds that "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than what’s needed to produce it.”

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Education_and_reasoni...

I'm not actually silencing anyone by down voting, but if enough people down vote then it does make it slightly harder to see the post. Of course, if you don't have showdead enabled in your profile, you don't get to see those posts. I'm not opposed to collective actions in a venue designed for it, such as this one. When I make a comment I am aware that it might be down voted to oblivion, and that's something I accept. I'm free to disassociate myself with Hacker News if I don't like it.

I tend more libertarian than anything and I mostly down-vote. That's because most people have too low of a threshold for what constitutes a valuable comment.

My take on the Platonic ideal HN user:

Tech-savvy NPR liberals: deeply capitalist, socially liberal, who consider expressions of emotion profoundly offensive. This is particularly true of anger, with empathy being a close second. Humor is almost-but-not-quite taboo.

When politics is discussed, solutions outside of boycotts or elections are eschewed. Partisans are not acknowledged to exist, nor are bad-faith actors: if someone says something, you must pretend to believe they are acting in good faith, and that debate is always worth pursuing.

Racism and bigotry simply do not exist.

Market forces will solve climate crises. The use of force will not be considered or allowed to be discussed.

Can confirm.*

*black guy who occasionally makes it a topic here

Startup News on the other hand…

I think your comment reflects more on yourself than anything else.

Agreed with most of your points, except they're actually "tech-savvy OAN 'independents'".

Racism and bigotry is alive and well here in Hackernews, it's just disguised, and perhaps not directed toward the usual races you'd expect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com