There is a lot of negative energy, hidden under that thing we call downvotes
They should be punishing low value content or outright trolling, but it's instead a measure of how much the comment matches the general bay are technocrat sentiment
I followed a conversation the other day about the increase of alcohol related diseases and addictions in US and one of the most voted comments was about getting sober thanks to AA
There's value in getting sober, but it's not a solution to the problem presented, which is mostly a social problem, that the private health care in US won't solve no matter how much money you pour at it
And yet those criticising the US social system and the absence of a public welfare were downvoted.
So in the end nobody learns from their mistakes and those willing to collaborate bringing a different POV are discouraged to do so again.
By the way, only about 10% of the HN community is in the Bay Area and that segment is by no means all "technocrat". People's impressions of the community's politics are mostly the afterimage of what they saw that they disliked, because those are the things we tend to notice and that make the strongest impact. People who dislike the opposite things have the opposite afterimage. In reality, the community is divided and produces lots of examples either way.
> By the way, only about 10% of the HN community is in the Bay Area and that segment is by no means all "technocrat"
The original comment said "a measure of how much the comment matches the general bay are technocrat sentiment", it doesn't say that everyone on HN is from bay area or a technocrat.
From my understanding it means that if people believe "it's what people in Bay Are would think" it gets more traction.
There's a trend towards conformity that is helped by the style of moderation.
Not saying is bad, just saying that there's a consistent pattern.
I'd say the opposite is more prevalent. People assume that HN is dominated by Bay Area thinking—which is to say, whatever caricature they regard as Bay Area thinking, since there's no single such thing—and then post what they imagine to be their minority/contrarian view against it. Usually they do so angrily or sarcastically, since people get defensive when they think they're going against a dominant view.
It's been many years since HN comments have been Bay Area-centric, if they ever were. HN now has far more users who identify against it than with it, at least among commenters. That's why I tell people that only 10% of the community is based there; it usually comes as a surprise.
> which is to say, whatever caricature they regard as Bay Area thinking, since there's no single such thing
Yes.
And it is exactly what I said
> if people _believe_ "it's what people in Bay Are would think"
That kind of "tension towards conformity" is still very present, at least it seems to me, even though they are conforming to an idealized and/or caricatural way of life.
And my understanding of the original comment is that it was mocking the "bay area billionaire wannabes".
> Usually they do so angrily or sarcastically, since people get defensive when they think they're going against a dominant view.
This wasn't the case though.
My point is that my last comment costed me some downvotes and a minus on the karma, but it wasn't angry or sarcastic or against a dominant view, it was only an analysis on someone else's comment.
No big deal, probably someone disagreed with it and downvoted the comment, but that's not what a downvote should be used for - AFAIK.
It's all relative. I've met many people who assumed that HN was 90% or more in the Bay Area, and that they—being located elsewhere—were part of a tiny outlier minority. That kind of misperception skews one's view, and I think tends to make people more defensive. They feel like they're up against some supermajority that actually doesn't exist.
Upvoted because you provide a detailed and calm post (which ironically is being downvoted!).
The internet does do a lot of good, but I don't think that it has increased negativity.
Instead, it's made it easier to communicate and see negativity.
As in, previously people would communicate within actual, physical social circles and often these would be (or inevitably become) an echo chamber for people with similar opinions.
But now, it's so easy to _communicate_ negative things due to pseudonyms and anonymity, plus it's easier to _see_ negativity because hundreds of different opinions are available in each thread - not just one or two opinions in the pre-internet, echo-chamber days.
There is a lot of negative energy, hidden under that thing we call downvotes
They should be punishing low value content or outright trolling, but it's instead a measure of how much the comment matches the general bay are technocrat sentiment
I followed a conversation the other day about the increase of alcohol related diseases and addictions in US and one of the most voted comments was about getting sober thanks to AA
There's value in getting sober, but it's not a solution to the problem presented, which is mostly a social problem, that the private health care in US won't solve no matter how much money you pour at it
And yet those criticising the US social system and the absence of a public welfare were downvoted.
So in the end nobody learns from their mistakes and those willing to collaborate bringing a different POV are discouraged to do so again.
It doesn't sound positive to me.