[xerxespoy]

Be great for threads like these if HN had both:

1) A block function so we could cut the massively-upvoted, one-sided comments and get to the impartial or contrary information buried underneath them.

2) A "unfade" button to see the massively-downvoted comments.

I've generally found when threads take on this imbalanced and highly-polarised state, the stuff on the top isn't the cream.

[wvenable]

I see no reason to provide additional support for threads with limited value to the HN community. If you want to discuss politics or general news there are plenty of sites for that.

[jamiesonbecker]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this entire posting is literally a discussion of politics/general news.

The tone of "I see no reason.. limited value" seems a bit condescending to what appears to be a sizable portion of HN that values intelligent debate, and there can be no debate with only one viewpoint.

[wvenable]

I'd have flagged it already but "voting machines" is vaguely tech related and it's still here.

It appears you only care what a sizable portion of HN wants up to a point as they are the one's upvoting and downvoting the comments.

[jamiesonbecker]

> I'd have flagged it already but "voting machines" is vaguely tech related and it's still here.

Agreed.

> It appears you only care what a sizable portion of HN wants up to a point as they are the one's upvoting and downvoting the comments.

Fair point, but in a flame war, HN runs a risk of having a one-sided discussion. Of course, some people believe that the losers in any particular forum should be silenced, because the majority view must be correct.

[wvenable]

There's no value in a flame war, regardless of which side is the majority. Extremely heated subjects do not lead to positive results here or anywhere. The only way to win as a person is not to play the game despite the very strong temptation.

But to your point, if you can't convince someone of the value of your contribution then perhaps it just isn't valuable. Do you believe all opinions and expressions of those opinions are equally valuable and require equal advertisement?

[jamiesonbecker]

> There's no value in a flame war, regardless of which side is the majority. Extremely heated subjects do not lead to positive results here or anywhere. The only way to win as a person is not to play the game despite the very strong temptation.

I agree, and the oblique War Games reference is appreciated.

> Do you believe all opinions and expressions of those opinions are equally valuable and require equal advertisement?

(Who would believe such a thing? Well, I guess there was the FCC Fairness Doctrine, but fortunately that's gone.)

Of course not all opinions are equally valuable, but an echo chamber of people parroting the party line also has no value. In fact, that has negative value to me; I'd prefer a cacophony of divergent opinions to a single narrative.

I'd just like to see the top 10 or 20 comments instead of the top single comment.

[skynet-9000]

> Of course, some people believe that the losers in any particular forum should be silenced, because the majority view must be correct.

.. that is, consensus, at least in that particular forum. But losers still shouldn't be silenced.

[xerxespoy]

Agree such threads presently have limited value, hence suggestions granting readers greater dominion over them. Sans, excessive polarisation remains a risk for any topic.

[wvenable]

Is excessive polarization an actual problem here? It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems mostly there are butt-hurt people who don't like that their opinions are unpopular, unhelpful, or illogical while everyone else (on whatever side of the issue) is happily commenting.

The only times I've ever been downvoted excessively, I've deserved it.

[xerxespoy]

It depends when you ask. Most times checking this thread it's been dire. The current top 3 commenters, comprising the first page of comments:

"The problem is that it's not totally clear whether Giuliani believed any of his crazy-talk. It may actually be the case that Giuliani is just off his rocker."

"I think it's nuts for a modern democracy to allow for anything but open source software being used to count paper ballots with chain-of-custody records, voter ID validation, biometric markings, and redacted ballots being published on the web for all to view and count independently."

"I hope whatever happens with these lawsuits it chills the baseless accusations of voter fraud used to undermine voter confidence in our democracy"

It's the definition of polarisation, entirely one-sided views, and each side demonstrably not thinking impartially. The first and third threads are largely echo-chambers with heavily-downvoted opposing views (which are often reasonable). All threads have some useful discussion, but its divisive opposite comes in seemingly combative/reactive waves that are stark in their coordination.

A community rooted in computer security (and AI) shouldn't be reliant on the naive idea that each anonymous online forum account represents one real person.

The suggestions made initially might go some way toward mitigating harm resultant from this reality of our current internet, which - thus far, almost exclusively for some specific political matters - HN seems to pointedly ignore.

[wvenable]

What comments are you expecting to see? This is not the medium for long form balanced well researched essay comments.

[xerxespoy]

In general: long-form, balanced, well-researched essay comments are exactly what's exhibited on HN, and precisely the reason many frequent the site.

It is starkly obvious to frequent visitors when comment threads deviate from this norm into highly-polarised, emotional and often baseless and yet miraculously-synchronised agenda. That this only occurs pertaining to particular topics, and reliably so, reveals to incumbent readership that those engaging in this activity, whilst possibly attempting to blend in, are actually standing naked in full view.

Indeed, in some cases this ineptitude suggests a low level of social awareness possibly consistent with that of a language model.

Regardless, tools to assist genuine readers in filtering such content and reversing its own filtering is a suitable mitigation, largely without negative side-effects.

[0df8dkdf]

Who can actually down vote on HN?

[gruez]

you need at least 500 karma.

[striking]

You can collapse threads you no longer intend to read.

[jamiesonbecker]

> You can collapse threads you no longer intend to read.

True, but only if there's more than one thread on the page.

[colinmhayes]

Just go to the next page?

[gruez]

We get it. You want "dissenter" but for HN.