I understand everything you're saying and you aren't going to get an argument from me on these points, however I still think there is a dangerous social concern here. HN isn't obligated to save the world, but there's an opportunity for improvement of this model isn't there?
The current system of hell-banning repeat offenders doesn't actually prevent the savvier users from seeing their content. Instead of that, what if comments could be split into two sections, threads about social ramifications and similar humanitarian concerns, and threads about intellectual curiosities and technology specific discussions?
Users could opt-in/out of each type of conversation, perhaps the social threads could be opt-out by default.
I understand what the site is trying to do. I also understand that there aren't really "other websites", because as I said this is where the real adult conversations are happening. HN is the only legitimate major source of news on the planet today in 2018, thanks in no small part to community participation. Everywhere else is garbage news and flame-wars as you've stated. I don't think "flame-wars" are a product of having grown up conversations about important topics, they're a product of having a lot of non-grown-ups participating in grown-up conversations. The up/down voting system does a great job already of filtering worthwhile content, it should not also be necessary to censor people.
_this_ conversation is, in my humble opinion, extremely interesting. What is the social responsibility of a website like HN which starts small but grows into something much larger? Look at what happened with Facebook when they ignored their social responsibilities in favor of their preferred direction. That's a conversation which should probably be had. And if we're being honest, and let's be honest, the best way to have it would be an Ask HN, and you and I both know that'd be flagged right away. My concern is: history has repeatedly taught us the severe consequences of that.
This seems like one of those situations where everyone knows it's broken and everyone wants it to be better, but strict adherence to "regulations" prevents otherwise free-willed people from doing what they know should be done. And then after the inevitable tragedies that result, people look back in hindsight thinking "why were we such fools". Often in the form of hollywood dramatizations ;)
I appreciate you taking time to hear me out, anyway.
The current system of hell-banning repeat offenders doesn't actually prevent the savvier users from seeing their content. Instead of that, what if comments could be split into two sections, threads about social ramifications and similar humanitarian concerns, and threads about intellectual curiosities and technology specific discussions?
Users could opt-in/out of each type of conversation, perhaps the social threads could be opt-out by default.
I understand what the site is trying to do. I also understand that there aren't really "other websites", because as I said this is where the real adult conversations are happening. HN is the only legitimate major source of news on the planet today in 2018, thanks in no small part to community participation. Everywhere else is garbage news and flame-wars as you've stated. I don't think "flame-wars" are a product of having grown up conversations about important topics, they're a product of having a lot of non-grown-ups participating in grown-up conversations. The up/down voting system does a great job already of filtering worthwhile content, it should not also be necessary to censor people.
_this_ conversation is, in my humble opinion, extremely interesting. What is the social responsibility of a website like HN which starts small but grows into something much larger? Look at what happened with Facebook when they ignored their social responsibilities in favor of their preferred direction. That's a conversation which should probably be had. And if we're being honest, and let's be honest, the best way to have it would be an Ask HN, and you and I both know that'd be flagged right away. My concern is: history has repeatedly taught us the severe consequences of that.
This seems like one of those situations where everyone knows it's broken and everyone wants it to be better, but strict adherence to "regulations" prevents otherwise free-willed people from doing what they know should be done. And then after the inevitable tragedies that result, people look back in hindsight thinking "why were we such fools". Often in the form of hollywood dramatizations ;)
I appreciate you taking time to hear me out, anyway.