Hacker News Reader

Comment by archagon | Hacker News Reader

I’ve long felt that recursive/threaded replies were the death of intelligent online discourse. It’s just endless debate club: everyone proselytizing stodgy talking points from their individual soapboxes without any genuine back-and-forth happening. If someone loses an argument, they usually just disappear instead of facing the music. No accountability, no reflection, no real sense of community.

Quite good at being addictive, though.

View on HN

On the other hand, threading makes it possible for one group of people to spin off into a subtopic like discussing the relative merits of threaded vs linear boards, in the same general post about what Zuck said, without annoyingly hijacking the main topic. On HN I often find it useful to collapase the child responses and just read the top level, until something like this pulls me into a rabbit hole.

The annoying hijacking of a thread was a visible faux pas and helped keep the order of the message board with downward social pressure as opposed to an unbreakable rule (like forcing threaded boards).

Meritocracy vs. benevolent dictatorship

Threading isn’t an intrinsic sin, I think — sorting by upvotes is. The Discourse forum software allows sub-threads while still preserving a linear conversation style. You could also empower mods to spin off discussions into their own, separate threads. Points is what turns it into an inherent pissing match.

It goes all the way back to Usenet, if not earlier.

When did Usenet really fail? I left by 2007 but it was in bad shape before that.

Spam killed it

I agree. It also means you likely need some way of sorting replies. And that means upvoting, which is a horrid system.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.

In my experience, well-moderated forums like Metafilter tend to have much more intelligent discussions than anything you’d find on HN or Reddit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com