I think that HN is one of the rare forums where this article doesn't apply.
Usually the top comment in a particular thread contains the least hedges and most enthusiastically espouses a particular opinion. The comment is not usually overly bombastic (though it sometimes is). The comment almost always adopts the majority opinion on HN.
Posting a comment not aligned with the majority opinion carries a risk of at most -4 points. I assert that downvotes more often correlate with disagreement than failure to abide by the standards of discourse. Since the penalty is limited, that's okay.
Therefore, if visibility and replies are your goal (who wants to comment without interesting replies?), then it's best to write boldly and concisely with a minimum of hedges.
It's not just the downvotes. They don't help, but it's also the responses.
There is a major psychological effect from getting attacked for stating an opinion you might hold to heart. As an avid reddit/hn commenter, I feel it often.
I don't really care if someone disagrees with me on something minor, but if it's something I truly believe is important and I see people disagreeing with it left and right and downvoting anything in line with that opinion, it makes me feel weakness and despair.
Weakness: I am overwhelmed by the people disagreeing with me. I can't answer everybody. Not because I don't have the arguments but because it's pointless, won't lead anywhere and will achieve nothing but make me look insane. The "hivemind" effects makes widely-held opinions even stronger and minority opinions even weaker. Alone, I am powerless to counter that.
Despair: Let's say someone thinks gays/black/women/whatever shouldn't [have some human right]. You truly believe that's wrong. If someone says to me "I think women shouldn't have the right to vote" and is impossible to convince, I feel pretty awful about it. I feel like that person is contributing in making the world worse, and I live in that world.
Now what if that's not about some minority-held opinion, but about something far more widespear? What if it's, for example, similarly insensitive and disgusting comments about islam/muslims? I don't just feel awful being around that person, I feel crushed by the amount of people who would agree with it. I'm quite afraid of what happens when such opinion is widely held. I feel like I'm looking at a lifetime of awful and I feel crushed by it.
My fiancée is a muslim. This is empathy kicking in. Not everything affects me that way, but I'm far less likely to comment on something I don't hold to heart.
But yes, I do enjoy HN because the hivemind effect is far more limited. The hidden downvotes and sorting algorithms are a million times better than Reddit's. It's not ideal, but it's still an excellent place to have discussion and a "good enough" place to have debates.
Yes, there is a psychological risk you take when you state an opinion on a topic that is important to you. The more important, the more disagreement hurts.
There isn't much one can do about opinions of others. We all try to keep things civil here, but it doesn't always work. Not immediately, at least. I remember the discussions after the last Paris attack; some comments were awful and literally heartbreaking, and I too was feeling a mix of anger and despair.
> What if it's, for example, similarly insensitive and disgusting comments about islam/muslims? I don't just feel awful being around that person, I feel crushed by the amount of people who would agree with it. I'm quite afraid of what happens when such opinion is widely held. I feel like I'm looking at a lifetime of awful and I feel crushed by it.
I recognize that feeling. Frankly, I prefer hanging on HN so much because it sometimes seems like one of the last few bastions of sanity on the planet. Back after Paris, my Facebook feed was literally breaking my heart, and it was HN that reminded me that not everyone holds harmful beliefs.
Anyway, when you see knee-jerk attacks and hurtful behavior, I recommend judicious use of the downvote and flag buttons. That's what they're for, and they seem to work pretty well at keeping the discourse at proper level.
You raise some excellent points. I have a few minority opinions and I have to essentially avoid some threads because I see how some brave souls who shared an unpopular opinion get vilified. It does hurt to be called names even on the internet. Thanks for replying!
I do not know if this is true. I have read that, although it only shows up to -4, it can cost you more than that. I have no idea if that information is still true or not. A lot of the algorithms have changed.
> Posting a comment not aligned with the majority opinion carries a risk of at most -4 points. I assert that downvotes more often correlate with disagreement than failure to abide by the standards of discourse. Since the penalty is limited, that's okay.
A comment can have far worse consequences than the loss of a few karma points. If you say the wrong thing, your reputation and (potentially) your livelihood are at risk. That's why, for anything remotely controversial, I use pseudonymous accounts. It's simply not worth it to have my real-world reputation ruined. I can't imagine the deluge of hate that would descend upon me if some of my views were known; doubly-so for misconstrued versions of them. I can already hear the haters: "Chroma approves of torture!"[1][2], "Chroma is sexist!"[3][4], "Chroma is ageist!"[5] "Chroma hates muslims!"[6][7], "Chroma hates the Amish!"[8], "Chroma hates pilots!"[9], "Chroma wants to slaughter all lions!"[10], "Chroma thinks motorcycle riders are mentally ill!"[11] Etcetera.
That said, I agree with you on defensive writing. When expressing anything controversial, defensive writing is mostly a waste of effort. Simply holding the opinion is cause enough for others to downvote and denigrate. Unless it's something very close to your audience's views, you might as well aim for good prose and avoid hedges.
Usually the top comment in a particular thread contains the least hedges and most enthusiastically espouses a particular opinion. The comment is not usually overly bombastic (though it sometimes is). The comment almost always adopts the majority opinion on HN.
Posting a comment not aligned with the majority opinion carries a risk of at most -4 points. I assert that downvotes more often correlate with disagreement than failure to abide by the standards of discourse. Since the penalty is limited, that's okay.
Therefore, if visibility and replies are your goal (who wants to comment without interesting replies?), then it's best to write boldly and concisely with a minimum of hedges.