6 ms·

Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down. This is normal given his position and it's the price of admission (see my other reply to his post). Pe

Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down. This is normal given his position and it's the price of admission (see my other reply to his post). People also rarely vote on how substantive your post is but on whether they agree with it or not. It's not in the spirit of HN to do this but you really can't control human behavior and people do this without being fully aware of it. Due to how human voting behavior sort of deviates from the spirit of HN, it's a good excuse to have some people moderate the site as having an emotional mob control everything could have the entire site turn into reddit. The problem is the people moderating the site are also human and also victims of their own biases and business interests so you get hella sketchy stuff like this pinned post. Still it's sorta good that this post wasn't outright deleted.

pydry 5y ago
The thread is a shitshow of bluster, vague accusations, mob down voting and carefully selected facts on both sides but it's interesting that it is still possible to piece together what actually happened by reading a selection of the comments from both sides. My impression is that one side is slightly more keen on obscuring the full facts than the other without outright giving the impression that that is what they are doing.
slumpt_ 5y ago
It's good it wasn't deleted, but disappointing that he winds up editorializing it with his quip. I've come to not expect much more from HackerNews. Sometimes http://n-gate.com/ http://n-gate.com/ is the best summary one can ask for.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Wow, that's certainly a faster way to read HN! :-D Thanks!
grzm 5y ago
> "Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down." While this may be the case, the comment you reply to is a particularly poor example on which to hang this comment. It's a snarky, insubstantive insinuation, regardless of whom it's in response to, and was edited to complain about downvotes. > "Still it's sorta good that this post wasn't outright deleted." It's likely it wasn't flagged and removed because it was in response to 'dang, as he is generally leaves responses to his comments in place even when they're quite bad, even if he doesn't follow-up with a reply in what I take to be added transparency.
- slumpt_ 5y ago
  Oh don't worry, not complaining about downvotes. Just baffled that the community stands by that characterization of the issue at hand. Plays into crummy stereotypes about the tech community and their general naivety regarding social issues / norms (or perhaps worse, apathy?). It's neither snarky nor insubstantive. It gets straight to the heart of the issue in few words. It does speak volumes. Few words can given context and choice.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

pydry 5y ago

The thread is a shitshow of bluster, vague accusations, mob down voting and carefully selected facts on both sides but it's interesting that it is still possible to piece together what actually happened by reading a selection of the comments from both sides. My impression is that one side is slightly more keen on obscuring the full facts than the other without outright giving the impression that that is what they are doing.

slumpt_ 5y ago

It's good it wasn't deleted, but disappointing that he winds up editorializing it with his quip. I've come to not expect much more from HackerNews. Sometimes http://n-gate.com/ http://n-gate.com/ is the best summary one can ask for.

CRConrad 5y ago
Wow, that's certainly a faster way to read HN! :-D Thanks!

grzm 5y ago

> "Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down." While this may be the case, the comment you reply to is a particularly poor example on which to hang this comment. It's a snarky, insubstantive insinuation, regardless of whom it's in response to, and was edited to complain about downvotes. > "Still it's sorta good that this post wasn't outright deleted." It's likely it wasn't flagged and removed because it was in response to 'dang, as he is generally leaves responses to his comments in place even when they're quite bad, even if he doesn't follow-up with a reply in what I take to be added transparency.

slumpt_ 5y ago
Oh don't worry, not complaining about downvotes. Just baffled that the community stands by that characterization of the issue at hand. Plays into crummy stereotypes about the tech community and their general naivety regarding social issues / norms (or perhaps worse, apathy?). It's neither snarky nor insubstantive. It gets straight to the heart of the issue in few words. It does speak volumes. Few words can given context and choice.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]