[Fnoord]

The burden of proof lies at OP, not parent.

The argument, as far as it exists, is constructed as follows:

1) I do not like content X.

2) Observes content X is being upvoted.

3) We should get rid of content X.

4) There are a lot of people who agree with me (= argumentum ad populum, and furthermore lacks data).

It is basically the same as arguing with the mod system (which is on every website a big fat no-no), but then under a guise of not getting the candy you want (apparently then its OK).

You know there's a much simpler solution than complaining about it? You can work around content you dislike by submitting and upvoting content you do enjoy. Or another option is leaving, going to another website, or getting something useful done.

[thealfreds]

I don't think a burden of proof needs to be constructed at this time. OP stated a perceived issue and a possible fix for it.

The top reply at the time was a low level deflection of the idea rather than a constructive feedback of the idea / feature as others did above. Deflections don't constructively argue for one side or the other. It is merely to shut down an idea and stop discussion.

[Fnoord]

Did you actually read OP at all? Or is it that you just agree with their viewpoint and therefore find the lack of a constructed argument OK? OP has not constructed much of an argument, if anything at all. It is itself a political comment which sparked a shitload of political comments. On Slashdot it'd have received -1 Flamebait.

My simple solution to upvote articles you find interesting stands. That way, you're able to vote on this website, and every unique visitor has a say on the matter here. Its not unique to HN, a lot of websites work like this (Reddit and lobste.rs for example).

Take for example myself. I am not from the USA, so I could say anything related to USA politics or US business or US hiring isn't of my concern. Reality is though that I'm not interested in quantum mechanics. Someone who's a JavaScript developer might not be interested in security. Someone who's interested in UNIX system administration might not be interested about Microsoft Office. And so on, and so forth. And someone who's living in a villa and bought all the villas around him might not be concerned with the privacy of the general population. That's everyone's fair right, and all of these individuals are going to have a certain signal to noise ratio on HN, as well as a vote (as explained above). There is not one single HN visitor who will enjoy each and every article on the FP. And blimey, be thankful of that, because every interesting article which doesn't exist means you got more time for something else.

You can already manually hide articles you are not interested in. Alternatively, if it really bothers you, you could write a simple blacklist with keywords which would then be hidden from the list. But don't make your problem someone else's problem. Don't make it appear that your apathy regarding politics should be the status quo. Just like we're not all into quantum mechanics, some of us are interested in politics.

What certainly doesn't help is complaining about it. Should I complain in threads about quantum mechanics how I find it boring, how I find it a waste of time, and how we shouldn't discuss or upvote it? I'd get grilled. And for good reason. It is disrespectful to those who do find quantum mechanics interesting. So I GTFO of discussions about quantum mechanics because it isn't my league. If you find politics boring, it probably isn't within your league either. So, sure, stay away from it. You got so many tools within grasp to use for that.

[thealfreds]

A lot of this argument boils down to people are not allowed to question the structure / content of a site because it will be self regulated. I think those discussions are healthy for a community to have and would prefer people offer an opinion of why such content is viable for the space vs deriding conversation.

Also I agree and I enjoy seeing politics discussed. You are conflating my defending of someones discussion around the structure with the site / features or focus of the the sites content with me defending their argument. Two different things here.

[Fnoord]

> A lot of this argument boils down to people are not allowed to question the structure / content of a site because it will be self regulated. I think those discussions are healthy for a community to have and would prefer people offer an opinion of why such content is viable for the space vs deriding conversation.

You're not demonstrating how or why the solutions I have offered are not applicable. Why are these solutions I offered perfectly valid for someone who's not into quantum mechanics or JavaScript or Android or Windows, yet they somehow don't work for someone who's not into politics (however vague that definition might be)?

As for my argument being that people are not allowed to question the structure / content of a site: yes, they are allowed, just not in a thread which is about something else. This thread is about "The Paradise Papers: How Ridiculously Easy It Is for the Rich to Avoid Taxes" not about whether politics are allowed to be discussed on HN (which is itself a political argument by proponents of political apathy). Are you a proponent of moderation complaints ("downvoting", a form of argumentum ad misericordiam) in threads? No? Then why would you be a proponent of people who complain they find an article or bunch of articles irrelevant or offtopic?

I'm all for a meta forum where people can rant their ass off about how X or Y is ontopic on the website. A website I visit regularly (Tweakers.net) has such a subforum where people can submit things like spelling mistakes or complain about moderation. Let the complainers together enjoy their cesspit of complaints, being directed to it, while such complaints in the threads themselves are downvoted to offtopic (0) or troll (-1). GLHF wasting your time on that, having people vent their frustration already helps them with their problem.

[thealfreds]

> You're not demonstrating how or why the solutions I have offered are not applicable.

Your solution was that I write a script to blacklist certain words? Is that really a viable solution vs a product implementation?

> Don't make it appear that your apathy regarding politics should be the status quo.

And nowhere in this discussion was I against the discussion of politics just that this immediate and visceral reaction to wanting to discuss a topic is my issue here.

If we had a meta forum as mentioned above I would love for discussions like this to be moved in that direction but we are where we are because the lack of structure.

[Fnoord]

> > You're not demonstrating how or why the solutions I have offered are not applicable. > Your solution was that I write a script to blacklist certain words?

Yes, that was one of my solutions. Only one human being has to write such a simple script, and share it for the rest of the world. The other solutions I provided require manual labour. It could also easily be implemented in the apps which use the API (f.e. I use Yarn).

> And nowhere in this discussion was I against the discussion of politics just that this immediate and visceral reaction to wanting to discuss a topic is my issue here.

Because it is offtopic, just like rants about quantum mechanics would easily be or become offtopic in a thread about Android security. We wouldn't accept that; why would be find rants about politics being on the website acceptable? The intolerance fundamentally starts when people go offtopic complaining about the substance of the topic which is disrespectful to those who do care about the topic. It does not need to be this way, if you just moved on, filtered, upvoted, read, and participated in what you find interesting. That's a way to positively reinforce instead of negatively.

> If we had a meta forum as mentioned above I would love for discussions like this to be moved in that direction but we are where we are because the lack of structure.

So the lack of that justifies graffiti in random threads until your demands are met?