[cantrip]

One of the most annoying things to me about HN, or any forum site in general, is when people jump on obvious typos or grammar errors when they could easily ignore them and respond to the actual content of the comment instead.

Use context. It's so incredibly obvious that this person didn't mean treat, and yet here it is, a little jab to say "I'm just a little bit better than you" because I noticed a missing h and just couldn't help but point it out to everyone else, who also noticed it but didn't care.

[loceng]

Is it obvious though? I thought maybe they were being funny or clever by perhaps meaning to use the word treat. Responded further here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15703788

No jab intended. I think assumptions are dangerous as well, and lead to more problems - including internal distress - instead of perhaps putting inquiry forward to ask for intentions instead. Obviously you're getting an answer from me now, however you still may not believe my intentions.

[cantrip]

Let's break it down.

The first poster says Facebook "[is] not [a] concern for democracy".

The responder says "What an uneducated answer from what I assume is a techy. Facebook is a treat to democracies. There are more articles on this than the other way around."

The first two sentences seems to imply that they disagree with what has just been said, that is except for the word "treat", which implies that they actually agree. If they are saying "treat" then they're saying not only is Facebook not a concern for democracy, but it is actively beneficial.

However this argument is then immediately negated by saying "There are more articles on this than the other way around." Ignoring the ridiculously false logic of the statement, there are objectively more articles about Facebook being a threat to democracy than there are about Facebook being a benefit to it.

Thus I concluded the person meant "threat", which I found to be a very obvious conclusion given the context of the statement.

[loceng]

I think you're not understanding me. If "Facebook is a treat for democracy" is said sarcastically, it has the same meaning as "Facebook is a threat to democracy."; sarcastic might be the wrong term, I can't think of the right one at the moment.

[notacoward]

Maybe if s/he hadn't just accused other people of being uneducated (without repercussions despite the obvious lack of respect), the typo wouldn't have stood out as hypocritical. You too need to use context.