[Dogamondo]

This is an ironic piece to be discussed on HN, especially for the commenters who express any disagreement with the TSA policy referenced in this article.

As someone who has been down-voted quite harshly for making offhanded humorous comments on a few threads, it seems it would be hypocritical if the TSA's stance in this article was not lauded with praise by the HN community at large.

In an airport situation, joking about any matters of security is seen as undesirable and quite intentionally punishable.

From my experience over a few accounts on this website, the same philosophy holds right here on HN - Make a joke or humorous response to any story (whether it be a super-serious matter of international security or light-hearted comparison between Ikea furniture and death metal bands) and you'll be punished duly by the community at large by means of trouncing your reputation here into the ground for your attempts at humour.

So here's where I'd like to pose the question - Why the massive hypocritical disconnect HN? Just because PG referenced it in an essay of on-topic commenting etiquette? I find we discuss important issues on this site with a certain amount of passion and opposition when it comes to anything threatening censorship and freedom, and very quickly turn around and (blindly) adhere to the same policies when they're suggested as the right way to moderate each other in our own online community.

I've been downvoted a few times recently for attempting to make a few jokes of my own this board and it annoys me that we're all encouraged to punish that, the same way the TSA is.

I realise I'll probably lose my account over this comment. But as parting words I'd like to say:

To those who've ever upvoted a well intentioned humorous comment that gave a slight chuckle or reprieve from the (amazingly thought provoking and informative) super on-topic and serious comments that are encouraged on this site. - I absolutely and unequivocally salute you.

[noonespecial]

As someone who has been both upvoted and downvoted much for humor on HN, I'd say this isn't quite accurate.

HN polices itself diligently to keep comments from filling up with one-liners like many other forums. Its a point of pride. No "First", or "welcoming overlords" and all that non-sense here. HN does appreciate sophisticated wit when applied appropriately and moderately.

I've found a simple way to determine if I'm about to collect downvotes is to ask myself "is this joke more like 'that's what she said' than 'In the morning, I shall be sober'?"

[DanBC]

> I've been downvoted a few times recently for attempting to make a few jokes of my own

HN doesn't want noise, they want signal.

> To those who've ever upvoted a well intentioned humorous comment that gave a slight chuckle or reprieve from the (amazingly thought provoking and informative) super on-topic and serious comments that are encouraged on this site. - I absolutely and unequivocally salute you.

Christ no. HN needs more downvoting and more upvoting.

[brownbat]

> HN has no sense of humor.

(Downvotes and arrest are radically different punishments, but I'm guessing you realize that, so setting that aside...)

I haven't read the pg essay you're referencing. I've been smacked down for a joke here or there, spent some time wondering about the same thing.

HN seems influenced partly by a frustration with other aggregators, forums. There's an explicit desire to prevent the slide towards irrelevance.

Comedy and drama never compete on a level playing field, true of forums, or in any other arena. Probably because they just aren't commensurable, and don't belong on the same scale. You can't really compare Airplane!, The Shining, or Before Sunset. They're all just completely different experiences. If people take something very seriously, like the Oscars, they tend to ignore comic achievements. If people are quickly flipping through the internet out of boredom, it can swing the other way.

One of the best moderation systems for cultivating both at the same time is over at Slashdot, where you can mod something up as "funny," "insightful," or "informative." Then readers can filter comments based on which of these they'd rather see. Everyone's experience is customized, and the "funny" upvotes are just on a completely separate scale.

All moderation systems and interfaces involve tradeoffs though, and HN seems to pride itself on simplicity. The simple interface, combined with the desire to escape the trivial tone of Reddit, pushes to a more serious discussion, maybe one that takes itself a little too seriously. But that seems a fair balance against the rest of the Internet, which probably doesn't take itself seriously at all.

That said, you can do humor on HN, you just have to know your audience. I wouldn't use "The Aristocrats" with my family at dinner, on HN, I'd stick to incredibly dry long form satire reminiscent of Jonathan Swift. Really, anything that would appeal to the humor of someone living in the Victorian era should work. Less LOL, more HVD (for "how very droll").

[nekopa]

I'm not so sure about that. My highest scoring comment was a piece of humor. I think, like with all the comments on HN, people want something which is well thought out.