Up/down vote systems, especially ones that punish the poster quickly by rendering their post unreadable, create a hivemind of people who agree. HN posters LOVE to point out the fact it's "not like Reddit" when, in fact, it is. If you say something factual but disagreeable with the current zeitgeist of HN (usually mid-to-far-left social policy) you will be met with downvotes. Even a small amount begins to add up until eventually your account is auto-dead (shadowbanned). This is especially bad because each downvote is not required to have a retort. Since the downvoter is not subject to the same rules it can happen freely and without consequence. New accounts are most susceptible to this. It's often better to post extremely agreeable, astroturfed, opinions just to collect enough internet points to protect you from driveby downvoting later.
The result is a hivemind no different than Reddit. People here are just as afraid to post their opinions on language/framework/policy as they are on Reddit. None of these rules matter because the assailant (downvoter) can do what they do best without consequence. At least in a meatspace debate/talk/whatever the disagreeing party must reveal themselves to make a case.
> the current zeitgeist of HN (usually mid-to-far-left social policy)
HN has no zeitgeist, and "mid-to-far-left social policy" is not even close to my experience.
A lot of commenters seem to think that HN has some kind of consensus, but it doesn't, as dang himself (the HN moderator) can testify. A number of different factions coexist (uneasily) here.
My experience is that upvotes and downvotes are... pretty random, sometimes inexplicable. It really depends on who happens to see your comment at the moment in time.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, on both points. I, like the person you're responding to, have experienced the zeitgeist of HN and have come to the same conclusion of a prevailing mid-to-far-left social policy. Again I agree with GP on the points they make about voting, in fact I think we should get rid of votes altogether. The fact is, for most people a vote is a reflection of who they are, not the comment they're voting on.
Like I've said before, a comment can be downvoted by every single user on HN and still be accurate and true. The truth is the only thing that matters. Unfortunately, we're each responsible for our own reactions to the feelings we have, and that often means, despite a commenter's best effort, they're still going to offend some and please others. Since we can't please everyone, the best way to do the most good with your words is to use them to spread the truth. The truth is always going to be hard to deal with for some, but they'll be better off with that awareness than with (perhaps blissful) ignorance because the choice of whether to stay ignorant is put into their own hands.
Side note: This also reduces the total amount of suffering in the world by reducing the number of people who end up having to pay for the consequences of their actions without any awareness of the existence of the consequences (such as breaking a law you were unaware of and being put in jail for something you didn't know was illegal)
> I, like the person you're responding to, have experienced the zeitgeist of HN
I'm sure you have. And I've experienced the opposite. There's a natural tendency to pay more attention to criticism of one's own views and to come to believe that only one's own views are persecuted, based on one's anecdotal experience, but that view isn't empirically accurate in the aggregate. Again, dang, who has observed countless these kind of complaints on HN, has written about the phenomenon many times. He could probably cite a bunch of examples.
> While I hear what you're saying, it's bordering on an appeal to authority. Dang is just one person and has his own set of biases
My point about dang is that (1) dang has seen more HN comments that literally anyone else in the world and thus has more knowledge about this topic than anyone else in the world; (2) dang specifically sees the posts and comments that have been flagged, because of his job as moderator; (3) dang has seen (and can probably cite) the comments from all ideological standpoints complaining that that the opposite viewpoint is dominant on HN and that their views have been censored.
Any way? There are left-leaning social positions that would be entirely expected from a modern tech-focused VC company. I support those causes and positions to various extents (if not always their approach to advocacy and addressing other viewpoints), but they're still left leaning.
Greta Christina has an excellent article about why "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is mostly nonsense. Fiscally conservative means socially conservative in almost every way that actually matters.
you do not understand the what it means to be 'mid to far left' if you think that it means 'socially liberal.'
leftist = anti-capitalist, social programs, unions, worker-coops, etc.
i hate to break it to you, but socially liberal is the mainstream centrist opinion now. Gay marriage has 70+% support, trans rights and abortion are both over 50%, my backwater suburb turned up in huge numbers for Black Lives Matter, etc.
The result is a hivemind no different than Reddit. People here are just as afraid to post their opinions on language/framework/policy as they are on Reddit. None of these rules matter because the assailant (downvoter) can do what they do best without consequence. At least in a meatspace debate/talk/whatever the disagreeing party must reveal themselves to make a case.