[ballenf]

I prefer the back-and-forth the way it is now. I perversely enjoy reading a comment and "buying into it" only to realize from a reply that I was naive or too trusting. Or, at least, that there are more angles to the story.

This helps you build up an immune system that is skeptical. If most wrong answers were removed/flagged/hidden then the remaining wrong but unflagged would be even more a problem.

[tejohnso]

Exactly. This helps train the "don't believe everything you read" muscle.

[edgyquant]

Sure for the percentage of people who do read all the way through and then rethink things. This is <1% in most communities

[setr]

Assuming everyone is an idiot, and designing around that basis, seems like a great way to foster a community of idiots.

And unlike stackoverflow, there’s not really any good reason for anyone to think a top-level comment is somehow authoritative, especially because the best comments on HN tend to be replies

[CRConrad]

> I perversely enjoy reading a comment and "buying into it" only to realize from a reply that I was naive or too trusting.

Good for debate and free speech in general, but bad for your grasp of the facts in the case every time there don't happen to be any corrective replies.

Hard to weighs pros vs cons.

(ObSillyPun: Naah, just put them on the scales! But remember that a lighter pro will often beat a heavier con anyway!)