[benj111]

So we're on the same page, I understood qwsxyh to be making reference to hacker news. In view of that the up/down votes clearly aren't what make twitter what it is, or else HN would be the same, and I hope we can both agree that it isn't. So what is the difference? Id say culture, you're saying traditions (potato, potahto), so what is that culture? I would say at minimum communicating a reason for downvotes, rather than than just the blunt instrument of the downvote alone. Another cultural trait is frowning on ad hominem attacks, because its the message that should be debated, debating the form of the message seems closely related to me.

So it isn't about "you're proving my point by down-voting me"

[duxup]

I think culture plays a part, but the medium does to, I'd argue a great deal.

The differences between HN's system, and twitters is pretty obvious IMO.

Just at the most obvious twitter limits the amount of text. I doubt the average HN post would even fit on twitter. That's a pretty significant difference just to start.

>So it isn't about "you're proving my point by down-voting me"

I don't know what you mean by that.

[benj111]

"I don't know what you mean by that"

I was fully explaining my point of view, because I don't think it boils down to that.

I would argue that HN's voting system tends to encourage shorter comments. I personally find it annoying to write a well reasoned 10 point essay and get downvotes and no feedback, is there one particular point you're disagreeing with or what? So I would argue that long comments survive despite the voting system.

Could you suggest other differences in medium that you think make the difference? Moderation?