Is HN dieing?
So, being in HN for almost a decade(not with this user though) I saw a huge decline not only in the quality, but also I've saw some people claiming there's censorship around and suddenly less and lesser upvotes, less interesting content... not to mention that back then, being in a startup was something great, nowadays it's frowned upon. Are we starting at the end, or just a new phase? not to mention that back then, being in a startup was something great, nowadays it's frowned upon Yeah, there's been a very notable shift here, in terms of the zeitgeist formerly being very pro-business, pro-startup, pro-innovation, and generally positive; and now the zeitgeist being very negative, cynical, anti-business, etc. Not to say that there aren't still voices on both ends of that spectrum, but the prevailing sentiment has clearly shifted. I wouldn't say HN is "dying" but it's not the same site it used to be. I attribute that largely to a change in the composition of the community. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a question I'll leave for the philosophers. I don't know if I would quite put it that way, but I do remember techno-libertarianism being the dominant paradigm on HN at the beginning and for more leftish views to become common over time. I've found HN better in the last year or so than at any point since its inception I find the exact opposite. Over the past year there's been way too much politics, too much anti-business hoopla, too much general news that you can find anywhere, too much negativity, and generally less focus on interesting hacker oriented stuff. This site really as become "Hacker" News in name only. It's now heavily populated by a lot of people who didn't grow up immersed in the hacker ethos, and who don't share the values, traits and attitudes that have defined that community over the years. I mean, being anti-business is a huge part of the hacker ethos. The whole pro-startup thing being associated with hackers at all is pretty new. So, by returning to anti-business sentiments, HN returns to the hacker ethos of ~1994. I mean, being anti-business is a huge part of the hacker ethos. FWIW, I never really saw it that way... my perception was that it was more of an "anti BIG business" and "anti proprietary / locked-down / walled garden ecosystem" sentiment. But that's not the same as business per-se. Lots of hackers started businesses and even rms says that selling software for money is fine, so long as user freedom is preserved. That said, you have a fair point about the startup/hacker "thing" being a little more modern. Then again, 1994 was a pretty long time ago now. So I guess one could argue the point about whether that should be accepted as part of the hacker ethos or not at this point. >more of an "anti BIG business" and "anti proprietary / locked-down / walled garden ecosystem" sentiment The early days of the computer industry, at least, are nothing like that. The founders of Microsoft were hackers of the highest order, but weren't "anti BIG business" or "anti proprietary". Likewise with the founders of Apple, HP, and countless more. >heavily populated by a lot of people who didn't grow up immersed in the hacker ethos, and who don't share the values, traits and attitudes that have defined that community over the years IOW - it's growing. That is neither good nor bad on its own. It just is. Communities change through time - for better, worse, and neutral. How many PG essays have been published and/or discussed here in the last 12 months? Who cares? I've found articles better than PG's best essays on at least a weekly basis. There are billions to choose from -- losing PG isn't going to make much of a dent. Also, his last essays that I can remember, defending wealth inequality, were uninformed rbagege and (rightly) excoriated on HN and the wider media. I don't see you having submitted the "better" articles to HN -- can you provide a list of such articles you have found so frequently, let's say for the last 12 weeks? Incidentally, your comment seems rather hostile towards the man who founded YC, created HN, and set the original quality and tone of this online community. I don't care to provide them. You're welcome to disagree. My comment certainly is hostile toward PG. He isn't God. I don't have to worship him, even if I'm on his site. Do you think reddit has no discussions critical of its founders?. PG or the mods are free to kick me off if my comments about him bother them. dunno but it hasn't mattered to me :) I would love to see an overview on their top page. it would bring a lot of transparency. Entropy grows. Quantity of information drops. Interestingness falls. Is not it a natural process? an analysis on the top page with time machine would be very interesting people.. PG's excellent essays and the attached discussions were a huge positive. They drew a good audience and helped elevate the discourse. The new leadership is less intellectual, less inspiring, more inclined to politics. O tempora, o mores. > being in a startup was something great, nowadays it's frowned upon I've noticed this change, and it's one of my favorite things about HN. There are fewer naive people trumpeting the "accomplishment" of raising money. There are more people advising young devs not to work for equity. Why should we worship the idea of a startup? Startups are not noble in and of themselves. The vast majority are just a form of gambling that only wealthy people can safely afford[1][2]. As Peter Lynch said, "An investment is simply a gamble in which you've managed to tilt the odds in your favor." But a startup is never in your favor -- even if you're convinced they are[3][4]. There's still a huge amount of luck and social capital that's required, beyond just having the right product and market. Even hyper-successful founders like Biz Stone have gone on to start failures. To prove that startups are a gamble, look at VC firms. All but a few are money-losing operations because even they can't predict who will succeed -- and it's all they're supposed to be good at![5] I think the US is changing (for the better) in the sense that capitalist ideals, like startups, aren't blindly worshiped anymore. People ask whether we actually need another to-do app to raise $10M. To me, that's a very welcome change. 1. https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene... 2. https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/08/startups-a-rich-mans-game/ 3. https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/11/startup-statistics-small-... 4. "A company accepted by Y Combinator, therefore, has less than a 1-in-10 chance of being a big success." http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-... 5. https://hbr.org/2014/08/venture-capitalists-get-paid-well-to... > I saw a huge decline not only in the quality This is pretty subjective. I still see lots of amazing, fascinating comments from domain experts and people who are close to stories. > claiming there's censorship around There have been moderation experiments, like banning politics for a short time, but I don't know what else you're talking about. I haven't seen anyone claim they're being censored, except a few people who are posting truly awful stuff. There are fewer naive people trumpeting the "accomplishment" of raising money. There are more people advising young devs not to work for equity. Yes, but it feels like we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Less promoting raising money as an accomplishment in and of itself is a Good Thing in my book (I've actually written on this very topic). But it feels like we've gone beyond that to a place where innovation, solving hard problems, creating new things, building new businesses, etc., are denigrated. People ask whether we actually need another to-do app to raise $10M. To me, that's a very welcome change. That's a fair point, but I feel like the change is much broader than that. It's not just "why do we need this new to-do app" but closer to "startups are evil in general" here lately. You see a lot of anti-capitalist bullshit and generally anti-business sentiment on here over the past couple of years. And given the historical background of this site, that's a pretty major change. > You see a lot of anti-capitalist bullshit and generally anti-business sentiment on here over the past couple of years Sure. But couldn't that just be a change in demographics? It certainly reflects the zeitgeist of the US as a whole. "Late capitalism" and UBI are commonly-discussed topics now, and that wasn't true a few years ago. The point of my original comment is that, while I agree some things have changed, I don't agree that "dying" is an objective or universal way to describe it. But couldn't that just be a change in demographics? It certainly reflects the zeitgeist of the US as a whole. "Late capitalism" and UBI are commonly-discussed topics now, and that wasn't true a few years ago. Could be. Probably, even. But I'm not sure that HN "should" mirror the zeitgeist of the US as a whole (or the world as a whole, and so on). It's back to the Eternal September thing, where a community with a specific set of values / beliefs / etc. gets diluted to an excessive degree.