Ask HN: What's with the culture of suppression of dissenting views?

I don't know, I read with `showdead` on and the vast majority of heavily downvoted comments are really bad. Lightly downvoted posts are more of a mixed bag, but honestly I think it's pretty fair overall. Nothing is perfect but this forum gets it right more often than any other popular one that I have spent a long time on.

Overton window has shifted and there are some extremely intolerant subcultures that have popped up (in the world). Otoh, HN is probably one of the more tolerant forums to different views, most, like reddit, don't seem to even allow anything controversial.

Most downmods (that I get) are most likely just due to posting something dumb though.

There is obviously going to be some amount of abuse of the downvote button as an "I disagree" button in a large group of people, no matter how intellectually curious they are on average. On the other side of the equation, there is also always going to be some amount of people who write a low-quality post that hurts the conversation, and interpret the downvotes they receive as being of the "I disagree" variety (sounds like, "but it's true"). And of course, this categorization will be varyingly subjective per post.

My experience has been that HN has the fewest of both problems out of anywhere on the internet. But I've been here for less than five years. If it was even better before that, I am surprised, and sad that it has somewhat fallen. It would however mirror the similar falloff I've seen on the rest of the internet.

Note that this is compounded by the HN audience using the downvote button in a somewhat unique way: As far as I can tell, if they don't think something contributes, they will downvote even if there is nothing inflammatory or shitty in the post. E.g. if somebody replies with something like, "I agree" or even just a joke, they are frequently downvoted. This looks harsh, but I actually have found relief in the relative scarcity of these kinds of nice-but-low-content posts that pepper the rest of the internet.

Downvotes aren't "suppression of dissenting views", they most often come from snarky and hostile comments or clearly incorrect information stated as fact. I've been on this site for more than a decade across different accounts and from my perspective things are mostly the same. A thoughtfully articulated comment or one that strikes a cadence of open discussion and humility is pretty much never downvoted.

I mean, what sort of reaction are you trying to provoke that is not downvotes? Downvoting is a generally expected result of direct provocation. If an opinion is known to be provocative it usually means there is a wealth of existing discussion about it already where the finer points have been debated, and if a comment doesn't meaningfully add value to that larger extant discussion it'll probably be downvoted.

Speculative opinions are sometimes downvoted for being repetitive or easily Googleable for veracity first. There have been plenty of comments I started, googled in the middle, learned something, and didn't bother finishing.

Is this about covid? Politics? AI/LLMs/transformers? Religion? Vi/Emacs? Those are where I see downvotes. The first one needs pretty nuanced discussion because despite the focus of the world's science the virus is still evolving new variants and there hasn't been enough time for really great peer review and consensus-building on all aspects, and there's a huge political element. I think the political divide between parties in the U.S. is the worst it's been in a couple hundred years, so that will draw out the downvoters for anything controversial. We are going to have to literally vote to further the political discussion/landscape. AI is moving so fast right now that no one is quite sure what is happening and there is a philosophical divide or two over what it means with respect to consciousness, sentience, intelligence, etc.; a mix of covid-level uncertainty with a bit more existential implications and a big helping of YMMV on impact. Religion is mixed both with politics and existential beliefs and so also requires more nuance than provocation or speculation.

Emacs. (This is an example of a downvotable comment; sharing only an affiliation or preference without some contributory nuance or furthering of a conversation)

I think people in general have been conditioned to downvote or report dissenting views that they understand to be not only false but fall into the category of dangerous misinformation. It's especially noticeable on HN because generally these types of views are not of a technical nature and it's easy to dismiss as simply "not relevant to the discussion". (which is generally true)

HN doesn't claim to be an unfettered open forum of free discussion. In fact it's heavily moderated (not just for wild opinions) and you could argue that's what makes it so good.

The comments I see getting crushed are really out there, but then I stay out of the political threads. I see downvotes as a way to sense the limits of the community without actually hurting anything.

I think arguing back and forth about unsubstantial things on the internet is one of those small things that can really affect your mood. It's pointless and has mostly downside and no upside for me. So, I hedge my comments and word them with a bit of care to avoid knee-jerk responses that just want to disagree on technicalities.

> However, I've recently caught myself self-censoring and avoiding sharing provocative or speculative opinions, since they immediately get downvoted

You care about votes that much ?

Freedom isn’t free bud - you pay for it with Karma

Ironic that you're flagged. Basically proving the point. It's impossible to have any discussions on hackernews.

Hackernews had it's eternal september. Dissenting views absolutely aren't allowed and you'll end up punished by the site because you will get brigaded: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brigading

It's absolutely not inevitable. This is a decision by hackernews they made. They are doing this to 'slow the decline of the website'

IMHO there is no "punishment" for dissenting views. If you post something that gets downvoted into oblivion, well, the only outcome is that the community refuses to engage with that post (which we should be free to choose) but it's not doing you any harm or preventing you from doing anything else in the future.

There's no real reason for self-censoring, if you think something may be reasonable, you can throw it at the community and then you'll know whether it's something we're willing to discuss; and if it gets "censored" and thrown out, well, it's no big deal.

Downvotes are expressly allowed to express disagreement.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Hacker News is one of the most censored general forums on the internet. The only forums that are more censored are run directly by the organization they are about and kept free of any negative information, like /r/bitcoin or forums that claim to be about something general but are really run by people who are using it to advertise, like /r/gadgets or /r/cryptocurrency.

These examples are all from reddit but apply in a general sense as well.

Is it (A) in my head, (B) an inevitable stage of all maturing communities, or (C) something else like the state of the world at large?

Answer: D Maybe a little of all of the above.

I find it best to just ignore the votes. I know sometimes people will downvote or flag things I say or submit but I can say or submit those things anywhere else too. Some things will be seen here and some things will be seen elsewhere. I am not going to change the minds of the masses either way. I just share what I think others may find interesting and let them sort it out. If something is too taboo for one audience I share with a different audience. The more provocative topics may be better shared on 4chan assuming one has thick enough skin for the responses. Consequences will never be the same.

This won't help the comments that get flagged but you can ignore the votes on things somewhat with uBlock Origin and adding a custom filter. Addons -> uBlock Origin Preferences -> My Filters, then add something like:

    ## HN Block Karma View
    news.ycombinator.com##.comhead .score:style(overflow: hidden; display: inline-block; line-height: 0.1em; width: 0; margin-left: -1.9em;)
    news.ycombinator.com##.comhead:not(.sitebit):style(overflow:hidden; display: inline-block);
    news.ycombinator.com###hnmain > tbody > tr:first-of-type table td:last-of-type .pagetop:style(font-size: 0!important; color: transparent!important;)
    news.ycombinator.com###hnmain > tbody > tr:first-of-type table td:last-of-type .pagetop > *:style(font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.45em;)
    news.ycombinator.com###logout::before:style(content: "|"; padding: 0.25em;)
    news.ycombinator.com##form.profileform tbody tr:nth-child(3)
    #

I would say it is B. With enough people in the mix, and given how the internet has only just bolstered what would have otherwise been fringe ideas, public forums will eventually shift into a state where there are enough users of subculture X with an axe to grid that will see your comment and downvote it religiously.

Social media has created more mental illness in people. It's become normalized to jump to extreme slander like racist or sexist, etc. In my experience over the past 8 years on HN, when I am flippantly called things like that for disagreeing with something, there is usually a wave of nuanced, intellectually honest people who support you in the comments.

My advice is to "post and ghost". HN doesn't show you when someone else commented, so just move on. I personally don't care what non-nuanced thinkers think about me, and I know people who are willing to engage honestly with me will either prove me wrong or disagree without feeling the need to rip me apart. I think the consequences of dissenting are overblown.

The window of acceptable discussion does seem to be getting narrower and narrower.

sometimes it helps to have some kind of link or something to back up your opinion.

with an example it's hard to tell.

I try to go to new and offer advice to people early on which usually get upvoted. Then I don't really care about the down votes.

I don't know that I've necessarily seen suppression of views, but I have noticed an influx of what I call "reddit level" commentary. You know the type, usually low hanging puns or snarky replies that don't actually add any value or contribute to the conversation in a meaningful or relevant way.

As a rule, I immediately downvote these, because there's already a place for this kind of mad magazine garbage, it's called reddit.

The internet brought everyone and their opinion to the table. It used to be that debate was done within smaller circles, and the wayward elements within those were tolerated to a larger degree, but the rest, the outsiders, were never let in.

Now anyone can weigh in on anything that is presented online. You are no longer debating amongst your "clan" but amongst all clans, many of which won't really understand where you're coming from and will invariably disagree.

Generally I find myself very doubtful of anyone who complains about not being able to share dissenting opinions without actually saying what those dissenting opinions are.

I agree. I think the discussion has been in a better place. Many discussions are heavily polarized with no room in the middle. Maybe it’s the layoffs, maybe it’s the war, maybe it’s AI, maybe it’s the golem that Tim Urban talks about in his latest book, or maybe it’s all of these and more.

I don’t know the cause, but I would surely like a more open discussion where most viewpoints can be openly discussed.

Downvoting is an easier way to express a disagreement than writing a comment thus gets used more often. I am wondering if they should raise the number of points required to access this feature, it should probably be raised each year in fact.

But yeah some things you just can't say on HN without being downvoted: subcriptions are not evil, opt-out telemetry is fine, not everything needs to be open source, etc.

I think calling into question views that don't have bipartisan support (in the US, but similar divides exist elsewhere) is more likely to get shit on HN these days. I imagine this is simply a function of community size: a small community of pretend philosophers may entertain a thought that runs counter to the zeitgeist, but the general population won't.

Never pass up a chance to keep your mouth shut.

> Whenever I share my opinions, other people downvote them. What is wrong with other people?

Perhaps it's just an unpopular opinion. And yes, perhaps that's because the world has shifted on you. But perhaps your opinions have hardened too.

I think HN does a fair job at pushing focus to the good, and not piling on the bad.

"The Coddling of the American Mind" is a great book that explores this subject in depth.

Very bad overview that is a poor substitute for reading the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coddling_of_the_American_M...

> The book goes on to discuss microaggressions, identity politics, "safetyism", call-out culture, and intersectionality.[1] The authors define safetyism as a culture or belief system in which safety (which includes "emotional safety") has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. They argue that embracing the culture of safetyism has interfered with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development.[2] Continuing on to discuss contemporary partisanship or the "rising political polarization and cross party animosity", they state that the left and right are "locked into a game of mutual provocation and reciprocal outrage".[2]

> The authors call on university and college administrators to identify with freedom of inquiry by endorsing the Chicago principles on free speech,[2]: 255–257 through which university and colleges notify students in advance that they do not support the use of trigger warnings or safe spaces.[3] They suggest specific programs, such as LetGrow, Lenore Skenazy's Free Range Kids, teaching children mindfulness, and the basics of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).[2]: 241 They encourage a charitable approach to the interpretations of other peoples' statements instead of assuming they meant offense.

Yes, I see this whenever anyone posts something critical about someone’s cash pony, said pony’s owner and their pals gang up on the person. I don’t think it’s anything high level like y-combinator related, but rather low level sock puppetry

It depends on what kind of views you are talking about :)

HN is fairly tolerant on some axes, and fairly conservative on other axes.

But one thing you should learn is how to have a thick-skin. Who cares about downvotes? I certainly don't. Why do you?

I think you're onto something, at least on Reddit somebody would rush to prove you wrong (and get that sweet karma in the process). They say that HN is a more civilized Reddit, but I think only in form.

What view do you want to share that you feel like you can't?

a long while back, i set a global CSS rule to make all of the comments on HN the same black text color (rather than downvoted ones being greyed out). i like it so much more that way, because it treats everything as the same, and as a result, i haven't really noticed any sort of 'suppression' of thoughts; im oblivious to any downvoting that might be going on. the css rule is simply: span, span a {color:black!important}

Given the community works through a voting system, the downvoting of provocative and speculative opinions is the community's way of signaling that such opinions aren't welcome – or at least need to be better worded to encourage discussion.

Calling that a "cultural of suppression" instead of "the intended outcome of a feature" seems weird.

What do you propose as a solution?

Covid = Eternal September has arrived.

Ignore the initial downvotes. They are sometimes canceled out later, you just have to wait for it.

This is why it's best to create an account for every comment or every few comments. Say what you want to say and abandon it to start anew.

Then there's no concern about maintaining an ongoing reputation, or being downvoted or flagged, or having your comment deaded, or people being rude to you, or being doxxed - because you've already discarded the persona you used to engage. A temporary carapace within which to roam this virtual world, never to be inhabited again.

There's no self-censorship with this approach, because there's no self.

It's called the Paradox of tolerance[0]. Also, not all opinions are equal. There's plenty of garbage opinions (either wrong, offensive, or evil) that don't deserve attention.

There's always places you can discuss your opinions, but not all opinions are welcome in all places. If the people you _want_ to discussion your opinions with aren't in the places where you _can_ discuss your opinions, you should think about why that is.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I really appreciate the better signal-to-noise ratio here, but feel the moderation needs a "lighten up, Francis" in some places.

It's not in your head, people who wield downvote power on HN are ultra mid & downvote anything outside of the "current thing" or "prominent worldview".

Like all online communities, HN suffers from the "most active people online do nothing IRL" factor, and the downvotes show.

In my lifetime I’ve seen the general breakdown of civil discourse. I’m not totally sure it can be proven which side “started it”, but there has been a general trend where now that fringe scientist is not invited to parties anymore, and those ideas are shunned as if they carry evil energy.

As far as forums go, people here often try to keep things civil, serious, and in good faith (shoutout to dang), but IMO there is still that stain of “academic” bullying where the words stay polite, but their coded meaning is nasty and dehumanizing.