I think it's more a case of everyone being so entrenched in ideological warfare that we've moved from discussion to brand management--downvoting wrongthink rather than engaging with it.
I'm not sure if I was clear earlier, but the simplest explanation for why you get downvoted is that you have a history of posting flamebait. When an account does enough of this it gets subject to software penalties as well. If you want to commit to using HN as intended, which means scrupulously avoiding flamebait, snark, flamewars, name-calling, and all the rest of it—then you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and let us know.
I don't know what the averages are, but reviewing my comment history, seems to be more upvotes than downvotes.
I don't post comments on HN to stir the pot. I post comments on HN in the hope of getting other perspectives. A comment with a downvote and a reply is more valuable than a comment with upvotes and no replies. It's not like I can redeem HN points for cash and prizes.
I think I can do an OK job of not being an asshole, but I honestly have no idea what is or isn't going to piss people off or classify as flamebait here. So, if those are the stakes now, I will just have to accept my place on the shitlist.
> I think I can do an OK job of not being an asshole, but I honestly have no idea what is or isn't going to piss people off or classify as flamebait here.
I wish that there were some sort of metamoderation system. I downvote the mods whenever they post about abusing their power, but I don't know if that even has an effect, or if moderators' posts are immune from downvotes.
slashdot had that years (decades?) ago. For such a wild west porto-reddit type of site, it really did have some good tools to manage trolling. Moderation flags have a "type" (funny, troll, redundant, offtopic, etc). There's also a meta-moderation system where random users got picked to see some random posts and judge whether the first level of moderation is fair.
It's been around a long time, but I guess it's a bit fiddly? I'm not sure why other sites haven't adopted similar processes.
I think we share some similar concerns. I’m trying to focus on what can be done to improve the situation, rather than just noting it. Rather than complaining about wrongthink, what can you do to move the needle in a constructive way? No one likes being accused of collaborating with the Brave New World, and are unlikely to think they actually are doing so: rare enough is real-world self-realization displayed in Mitchell and Webb’s “Are we the baddies?”, much less when we’re on the defensive.
We’ve got to figure our way out of this, all around. Even more so to tackle issues like those addressed in the submission and so clearly on display in this thread as well. An early comment lamented the current situation:
> ”Hopefully we're still at the point where we can sensibly discuss a WSJ article.”
Well, maybe not it we just complain about it rather than making contributions that make the situation better. Of course it’s important to note that there’s an issue. (Bad analogy imminent!) Bug reports are necessary. At the end of the day we’ve got to dig in and fix those bugs and close the tickets, and make the system more robust.
A confounding twist with the system we’re working on makes it hard for us to disentangle beliefs from behaviors. It’s too easy to conflate the bad behavior of those we disagree with from their beliefs. And sometimes they are guilty of bad behavior. And we also need to realize that we ourselves might be guilty of behaving badly, and work on improving that so we can be more effective in understanding and be understood.
And I’ve increasingly tried to keep in mind that there are some games we play to win, and others we play to keep playing: Discourse in the small and society in the large is most definitely the latter. The goal is not to defeat our opponents, however they may be defined: it’s to figure out how to effectively make the game better. And like any rule change, everyone needs to be persuaded that the new rules are are a good idea.
I encourage you to work on some of the open tickets. Pull requests welcome!
(Thanks for your patience. Please accept the analogies only as far as they work and are useful.)
