[davidw]

That'd work if there were some guarantee that those voting for it were 1) good hackers, and 2) genuinely found it gratifying to their intellectual curiosity.

I think that #1 is entirely plausible, as most hackers have plenty of interests outside of hacking and startups, including politics. I find #2 doubtful. This looks like an article made to "get ones dander up", rather than to shine a light on some obscure but fascinating aspect of how the world works. The latter sort of article are usually really interesting, well written, and provoke discussions that are interesting to read in their own right, rather than extensions of people's convictions such as "Monsanto... BAAAAD".

I wish it were easier to explain the difference between the two, as I think it's usually very easy to distinguish them, and that PG would put it in the guidelines.

Maybe something like "articles designed to get an emotional reaction, or designed to make people agreeing with them feel like they're in the right, should be avoided".

[jmj4]

PG does seem to make this differentiation: http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, then perhaps it could be.

The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting. Gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter.

Either way, I agree that this article probably shouldn't be on hn.

EDIT: It looks like this has been flagged and removed from the front page

[taeric]

The fact that you had to use the No True Scotsman* definition for hackers as your argument really does not endear it to me.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[davidw]

> The fact that you had to use the No True Scotsman* definition for hackers as your argument really does not endear it to me.

Please read what I wrote more carefully.

I said it was entirely plausible that good hackers vote up articles like this, because good hackers have varied interests that include things like politics.

Most of my argument focuses, in any case, on the difference between the "getting people excited" vs "describing something fascinating" types of articles.

[cheeseandbacon]

Wearing your fingers down...