Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by willarson 6571 days ago
First, the first amendment has absolutely no relevance here, since it is a restriction being placed on government, not on individuals. There is a chronic habit to misinterpret this as "I can say what I want, wherever I want, whenever, however", which is an interesting opinion, but one with no correlation with the legal definition. The 1st isn't intended to--and doesn't--defend the imagined right to express your views on other people's servers.

Next, your real life examples are a bit sensationalist. The difference is that Saddam was killing people for expressing opinions, whereas we want to downvote poorly expressed and undefended opinions. A more apt comparison would be the university setting, where challenging opinions will be accepted on the merits of their presenter's ability to defend them. The same applies to Galileo, who was persecuted for his theories (not, note opinions). I believe that we'd be overjoyed to have a Galileo posting here, since he would link to his mathematics and let us examine the feasibility of his theories for ourselves.

Finally, to address the meat of your argument against downvoting, I think you have misdiagnosed why people are downvoted. I rarely see people downvoted for their opinions, but frequently see people downvoted for failing to effectively defend or explain their opinions. Since we are trying to foster discussion, the actual opinion is usually less important than explaining how they have arrived at their opinion, and why their opinion is viable. Simply expressing an opinion is noise in a conversation often boils down to noise, and opinions on their own won't feed the starving mind: the meat of the argument lies in explaining opinions.

Thus, I believe that the downvote allows the community to exert a stronger preference for comments that add value. If you want to avoid being downvoted, express you opinion and then defend it.

2 comments

"Simply expressing an opinion is noise in a conversation often boils down to noise, and opinions on their own won't feed the starving mind: the meat of the argument lies in explaining opinions." - willarson

To play devil's advocate here (because I happen to agree with your comment on the whole), the argument could be made that a downvote (without attribution or explanation) is just this sort of noise.

Very low amplitude noise. I'd rather folks downvote than spout nonsense just to say something in opposition.
If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to downvote, right? What is the argument here, I don't want other people to see it but I can't say why?
If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to downvote, right?

If all they have is nonsense, then they shouldn't be able to post a comment, right?

The question isn't, "Should someone be allowed to be stupid." It's "Should we give them an outlet for their disagreement that causes less disruption to the conversation?"

We can't solve stupidity. But, we can make it have less impact. I don't know that downvotes help prevent stupidity, or help reduce the impact of stupidity...but I think it does.

Of course, you're assuming that the post being downvoted or commented on has merit by virtue of someone having taken time to write it. I'm assuming that everybody (including me) says stupid stuff all the time, and a downvote is a low-friction, low-amplitude means of saying "I think this is stupid". It doesn't censor anyone, and it doesn't prevent people from having a discourse with that person if they think it's worth their time.

That's all I'm saying. (Though I could be having a stupid moment right now.)

Way too many words, downvoting for disagreement is (unfortunately) encouraged; pg has already given his edict: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171