[kelnos]

My theory is that it's two things:

1. People change. My HN account is 15 years old, and my interests and ambitions and tolerances are not the same as they were in 2009, when I was 28 years old and in a very different place in my life. When you interact with something for many many years, even if that thing stays exactly the same, you change, and think differently about it.

2. The site changes, too, of course. They aren't necessarily bad changes (and often I would say they're good changes!), but people sometimes associate change with negative feelings, especially with something they have an emotional attachment to or at least have been a part of for a long time.

Mind you, I don't think discussion quality has been declining here. In many ways I think it has been improving, or at the very least staying the same under a barrage of new users, higher scale, and low-effort LLM-generated comments.

[jart]

I also joined HN in 2009 and I agree with you. HN isn't perfect but it's about as respectful and intelligent of an organic community as it gets on the public web. When I do analytics on my blog, an upvote on HN is worth 10 on Reddit. Manipulative paywalled media pieces usually stay off the front page. I love how when I read news about a famous CEO like Matt Mullenweg, I can see him commenting here like the rest of us. I also think we're very fortunate to have dang running things.