At this point, my faith in this community is slowly being evaporated. Where I would normally look to this site as quite possibly the most objective source of information (from a entrepreneurial perspective) and a source of honest opinions and as a frequent internet observer (I really do place so much value on all of your comments and to my knowledge, almost all of them have had a significant impact of my life and my decisions), I am scared to what this community has become. As someone who followed digg and reddit from the early days, I transitioned to this site because I valued all of your opinions, which I believed to be honest. All of my submissions (all ask YC/HN) have been to consult the community on decisions that affect my life to an unbelievable extent. I really am just so confused as to what I said that has offended the community to result in such an extreme display of downmodding (including those that disagree with me). Please just explain yourselves and opinions rather than downmod all of the threads opinions.
EDIT: As an indicator, my Karma has dropped roughly 20 points within the past hour or so, I just really would love to know what aspect of what I said that has made all of you to so passionately enforce such an action. Maybe I have not established relevancy to the hacker community as to why this story matters and that is fine (or maybe you all just disagree which is fine with me as well). I cannot reiterate enough, for my sake, please just let me know what I said that was so offensive. Please refute.
EDIT 2:
I just would also like to say that this comment has no relation to the one that has been associated with my comment (the one that has been placed below mine because the one it is associated with has been deleted).
That comment goes as follows:
Look, I'm an Obama supporter. It's just that as far as I see it, this sort of thing is better left to other venues.
No it's not. Have faith in pg and the rest of us. This stuff happens all the time and we survive just fine. How could you know this after only 28 days.
"my Karma has dropped roughly 20 points within the past hour or so, I just really would love to know"
You never will, so don't waste any mental energy worrying about it. That's just the way it goes.
"confused as to what I said that has offended the community"
You haven't "offended" the community. Some people just downvote without commenting. Once it gets going, sometimes it snowballs. Forget about it and move on.
"All of my submissions (all ask YC/HN) have been to consult the community on decisions that affect my life to an unbelievable extent."
Great! Keep it up and do your part. Forget about the other crap.
I have noticed that discussions about what is "appropriate" get lots of upvotes ot lots of downvotes or both, without much logic. Hacker content threads, OTOH, are our bread and butter and are generally well received and appreciated. Stick with the latter.
FWIW I downmodded all politically partisan comments except the one specifically regarding technology policy. I did this because I like HN, and don't want it to turn into this:
http://files.sharenator.com/we_know-2368.png
I am sure you are a nice guy, I am downmodding your comments, not you. Don't take it personal.
The best thing to do is to be the HN you want to read. Submit good articles, make intelligent comments, and (possibly most significantly) vote up the articles which are really worthwhile. It still doesn't take a whole lot of votes to get something moving up the front page.
I think it's time for sites like YC News to implement an 'idea tribes/groups' feature in order to survive 'old age'. Site Moderators are only so effective as shown historically by Slashdot...
Delicious does this pretty well (though the way they do it doesn't completely map to most social news sites) and Reddit has started doing this with its topics feature... Maybe YC News needs to implement something similar? Thoughts?
All I know is even with the risk of missing some good posts, I do not want to see anything from the users that submitted and upmodded this post, and simply moderating this will only sweep the problem under the rug temporarily, and conversely the users that like this post will want to continue making posts like this in the future...
The problem seems to be that people will occasionally reflexively use the upmod arrow on an article just to say "hooray for the sentiment expressed in the headline" rather than after carefully thinking about whether it's worthwhile.
Examples include this article (I'm guessing that most of the upmodders were Obama supporters), the "congrats to pg on getting married" thread the other day, and the "happy birthday somebodyorother" thread a few weeks ago.
Pardon the brevity of my previous post. I'm sorry if it appears that I'm arguing for it's own sake. I only meant to indicate that we currently have an implemented definition of "better" between posts--the HN ranking algorithm. I believe that the burden of proof belongs to the party challenging the status quo to provide an alternative and then argue why the alternative is indeed the preferred system.
During the debate over which ranking algorithm/definition is better where I believe the Luttgenstein/Chmosky argument is most applicable because we don't have a clearly agreed upon definition of what a better ranking algorithm is. However, until an alternative is provided, we cannot possibly reach and/or explore these semantic differences.
Why I use the implemented definition of "better" in favour of my (admittedly completely subjective) definition?
If you surveyed people's definitions of "better [thing that they care about]" you'd get a lot of different answers, but I suspect few would say "more people like it" (even if an algorithm based on "more people like it" would be good at finding things they think are better).
No it is not and you are correct in that assessment. Personally, Obama does not represent a good portion of my views in terms of policy, but what he does represent for me is a new wave in politics, a wave that is once again representative of the people rather than individual incentive and making decisions based on who is going to line their pockets. Anything to end corruption is better to me than someone who is going to promise to act within my set of views for what is best for this country and then do the opposite or what they want.
My view, personally, is that government should act as a safety net rather than a guiding father figure. I tend to float towards more libertarian policies than anything, small government and as little intervention as possible (a view that can be considered almost the complete opposite side of the spectrum than Obama). My view is that this nation has grounding and worked for so many years to be a country of opportunity, therefore, the structure of government should reflect that ideal and anyone who is willing to work hard should be rewarded for it (no free gifts).
What I do support from Obama are his values (or proposed and believed values) as a human being. Not his religious values or the garbage perpetrated by the media (ie. reverand Wright). He gives individuals a reason to believe that he is going to act on what is best for society and that enough might be what will make me forget about his views of government. Yes, he most likely will propose policy that is near opposite of what I believe and I will make that admission, but I hope that having a man with a sense of ethics will take this country down a path where someone with my sense of views and his could come to some sort of a compromise with what is best for this country. I would rather have that than the selfishness thats perpetuated this country since I have been alive. I would rather have a man who will admit when he is wrong and correct it than someone who will ride it out. Call him a flip flopper or whatever bullshit title you want to call it (I am talking to you media), a real man will admit when he is wrong or made a mistake and then go to fix it.
Back to why it is relevant, it is news to you as a hacker because he represents technical views that are in line with what most hackers view as what the internet should be; maintaining status quo and keeping the internet free. I know without a doubt Obama would insure that the internet would continue to remain free and would not be corrupted by big business and allow them to manipulate the way traffic and data flows. That, above anything, should be the most important issue to you, as is to me. To my limited knowledge, he has promised to create a new IT oriented branch of the office if elected, which is once again relative to you. I have had quite a few drinks tonight (I know it is a wednesday but I will give the fact that I am in college as an excuse) but I hope my statement is coherent; the more you think about it, someone in politics, or more specifically the president, has almost the most significant impact to any hacker as almost any individual possible and that is why it is relevant to you. Cheers!
Not his religious values or the garbage perpetrated by the media (ie. reverand Wright)
At the risk of being downmodded for injecting more facts into this thread, you are aware (I'm sure) that BHO considers Wright to be his spiritual mentor? The connection is not a media invention or media "garbage" by any means.
You are also aware that Wright and his church are ideologically and officially associated with views of an extremely radical nature?
Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the one church frequently cited by press accounts, and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation of theology
This is the church that Obama spent 20 years attending. Ask yourself, everyone: What would happen if McCain had spent even one day in a church that advocated "White Liberation Theology"?
BHO is probably an atheist like myself and most intelligent people, and his attendance to the church was likely somewhat cynical. But the connection between the church's official dogma, Wright's views, and Obama are meaningful.
Amazing that these data are so upsetting to news.YC's audience. I wonder if one of the downvoters could articulate what it is about these facts that needs to be suppressed. It seems relevant to me that Obama sought such a radical preacher as his mentor, and it was only when one of his other spiritual mentors (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1207631070.shtml ) got in trouble that he finally left the church.
I enjoy the handling of downmodded items though. Where reddit hides it and thus makes unpopular views (especially really unpopular views) hidden, YC simply grays them out.
It'd be neat to somehow highlight really unpopular views while still being able to filter things out that are simply trash. YC doesn't have much of a problem with this right now, but it could help suppress the noise from the random waves of out-of-place comments.
Although he states that race has not permeated his thought process, a casual glance over the books he wants to buy share a decided slant towards race issues:
Bear in mind that I am black, and I am empathetic to him. Put yourself in his shoes, a young guy with a new gig just trying to make it in the Big Apple, and you aren't getting paid much so you have to settle in a seedier part of the city. People attack you and rob you just because of your color. You are trying to do something generative with your life. You were not part of this: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.liu.edu/cw...
The folks that committed those crimes are long dead. But that is part of the ugliness of racism/tribalism: It's propagated like a tumor to non actors and good people. I've been called an epithet or ten in my day, but I've never been under physical attack like him. I would hope that I would have came to his aid in some way if I saw it happening. I would also hope that I would come away from it without negative racial views of the perpetrators, but am I that noble? I'm not so sure. I was good friends with a Jewish guy in college who got chased after school every day calling him "white boy". He overcame that and saved my ass on many an occassion, but I digress... The human mind evolved friend or foe circuitry tuned to statistics, so the conclusion his mind has come to is somewhat rational.
So what does a man do? If you're of low intelligence and have a proclivity for violence, you become a skinhead. If you're Byrne, you have an above average intelligence, as he seems to, you get your ass out of dodge and read a few books to better inform yourself as to why what happened to you happened.
Again, as a black person I can't agree with his conclusions, but I empathize with him and he would have been within his rights as a human being to fire a pistol at his attackers.
If I mischaracterized him my apologies in advance.
A few other things: I should start by pointing out that your premise is flawed. I don't hate any ethnic group. I appreciate human diversity. Differences between human groups are real, and they appear to be somewhat genetic.
I was actually surprised to see how few race-y books I'd added to the wishlist. There's a sort of illicit thrill to buying something that you can't read in public.
Again, I really appreciate that you can keep an open mind about this. When I first got interested in this issue, I didn't know the ethnic background of the guy who was arguing against me -- if I encountered these views from someone who considered his ethnic group smarter than mine, I would not have been nearly so open.
If you're open to considering the idea further, I would recommend adding http://isteve.blogspot.com and http://gnxp.com to your reading list for a little while. You'll find, as I did, that they present a view of the world that's just more consistent than the one most Americans are raised with.
I wonder if one of the downvoters could articulate what it is about these facts that needs to be suppressed
Good luck. I was going to come up with an elaborate analysis, but it would be wasted. A quick analogy: If you write a post explaining why dell is cheaper than apple, given the same components, you will be severely downmodded. Even if apple is better in every other way, pointing out even a single disadvantage is an affront to people who've bought the whole package, even if they've bought that package because of a single detail.
In Obama's case, that single detail might be: 1) Iraq, 2) Net neutrality, 3) Telecom immunity, 4) Anything else.
ADDENDUM: I'm not going to look it up, but the only time I remember pg being dowmmodded severely was when he criticized (rather lamely, in fact) Ron Paul. So, it's not unusual.
I definitely think that these bitter Americans and non-Americans cling to social news sites and Obama. I just wish some of them would explain why, instead of downvoting factual information about their candidate. The guy has been a public figure for about four years, compared to maybe forty for John McCain, so I'd expect them to be desperate for new information, and thankful when it's provided. And yet, the more I tell people about Barack Hussein Obama, they madder they get at me!
Wait, is it bigoted to have information about Obama? Or bigoted to share it? Or is neutral information transubstantiated into bigotry by my communion with Odin?
It wasn't a question, it was a statement. You're a racist. It's become painfully obvious after reading your comments over the last several months. You can accept that or not. I just thought it was worth losing karma to confront you with that.
Okay. Does that mean I'm wrong? Or does it mean that I'm right but you're upset about it? If you can make a factual argument, I'd like to hear it. If all you can do is call me names, that's fine -- I'm okay with being vilified but not contradicted.
I don't think you should worry about being downmodded for injecting facts (downmodding is more of a reflection of the community rather than the validity or relevance of a statement) so never have that be a determinant of your opinions.
I would definitely agree with you, as I am sure you would with this statement, that Obama would not renounce himself from the church if it were not for the presidential election and the way the media has portrayed the situation. But what we might disagree on is what the definition of spirituality is, and subsequently what that influence has on values and opinions. You and me could have exactly the same viewpoints on every aspect of every thought but differ on spirituality and views of god etc, but does that necessarily mean that those values would reflect in our decision making process.
I don't necessarily support radical values (being white it would make sense that I am not a black "radical") but I will admit that sometimes it takes a group of radicals to have influence on a larger group to bring influence and equilibrium to the status quo.
To inject more facts into the thread and refute the McCain statement, a slow undercurrent and momentum has been to show light on McCains pastor Hagee:
Basically the same, yet opposing views, of Wright. Any logical individual will acknowledge that Black's have been oppressed throughout the history of this country, but I don't think that either of us are in any position to make judgment on whether they should feel as though they need to advance their race or make sure that they are considered equals among society any more etc.
I think the line that was crossed by Wright was the press conference right before Obama disassociated himself from Wright. It was clear at that point that Wright was taking advantage of the media coverage and milking the spotlight. I would have done the same if someone that I considered a friend sold me out to fame, fortune, press, whatever. To me, integrity and ethics are more important that religious values.
I was about to say, word for word, the exact same thing. Had it typed out and everything. Then I had to check on dinner, came back, and got the unknown/expired link error.
It is somewhat important to hackers what the future of tech policy in the United States will be. Net neutrality? FCC regulations on different parts of the spectrum? FCC regulations on ISP's? Funding on new internet backbones or litigation against the previous telecoms on their failure to implement high speed access with previous funding? Higher education funding and research grants?
All of these are directly related to the production of new/better hackers or the ability of existing hackers/internet startups to reach people.
While, yes, any other day this would certainly be off-topic, in our two party system when one party decides on its nominee for president of the United States, it is some-what important for hackers to know what the two possible outcomes of the future of Technology policy will be.
Articles about net neutrality and other political issues of relevance to hacker entrepreneurs are certainly relevant to HN. General political stuff of the sort that's already saturating the media everywhere else is not.
In response to all of our comments being heavily downmodded, (which I personally wish that the ability to mod was more integrated with the necessary requirement that a comment follow for the sake of conversation) I really hope that you could refute your point of view or why you so vehemently disagree rather than mod into the thread and conversation into oblivion so that no one else will see.
I really do believe that some important points were addressed in the conversation in relation to the validity and relevance to the hacker community for the conversation so I would hope that rather than mod down to where no one will see the conversation you express your opposing opinion. In the end a refutation will do more than silencing the opposition.
EDIT 1: Thanks to you all that have resurrected the comments in the thread (especially those that oppose the comments). It really would not bother me if every one in the HC community opposed those viewpoints, I am just glad to know that we could have a civilized conversation in the thread and that individuals will still be able to express their opinions in text rather than have the influence be based on votes.
EDIT 2: The conversation has obviously went from negative to positive for quite a while now (which would come with the assumption that it is quite controversial and polar topic), but once again, please establish your opinions rather than vote to where no one will read the viewpoints and comments expressed.
Hacker News? Not so much.