[gue5t]

If we had a more expressive way to classify posts than "up" or "down", I'd use it to indicate that "I want this post to be highly visible because it encourages anti-Facebook sentiment, which I consider to be a socially and politically valuable thing to do", and mark other posts with, for example, "this post contains good original research" or "this post makes accurate technical statements".

Why is HN voting so opaque, only explaining how votes work in scattered tidbits at the bottom of comment threads? A well-designed system doesn't work only because nobody knows how it works. The current method of "herd these sheeple through a maze they can't directly perceive" feels very patronizing.

At any rate, I'm not sure whether it's worth it to upvote the grandparent now, since it is apparently a censored viewpoint and merely shooting myself in the foot to do so.

[dang]

The integrity of HN as a container for substantive conversation rather than tedious tropes matters far more (to HN, I don't say in general) than encouraging rage against some target, even one as big as Facebook which there are reasons to be concerned about.

If you want to support such concerns, there are plenty of solid comments about them to upvote. One reason such comments get posted is that HN still exists as a place for them—which it would have ceased to do, long ago, if we didn't moderate shallow snark and ragey drive-bys. Those things are not "viewpoints". They're litter. Any genuine viewpoint is possible to express seriously, and should be.