Oh the irony of this thread.... Here is a social media site (Hackers News) that prides itself in being different because its comments are much more informed and knowledgeable, criticizing the leading social media site (Facebook) for putting out an informed and knowledgeable self reflection on its own value with a bunch of opinionated comments without any supportive evidence.
So the better question for this crowd should be: is Hacker News any better than Facebook?
They're not even comparable beyond having a comment system. As stated by others, Hacker News doesn't have a team of psychologists working to addict you to its content so they can then gradually replace that content with ads.
Hacker News doesn't have corporate tentacles in mass marketing, VR, photo blogging, viral videos, breaking news, dining(facebook.com/orderfood), self-driving cars, etc.
Hacker News doesn't punish you for using a pseudonym.
Hacker News doesn't sort content into a "personalized" feed based on how popular it predicts the content will be.
Hacker News doesn't cheapen human interaction by reminding you to say "Happy Birthday" to people you hardly know.
Hacker News doesn't host everyone's entire life stories, and thereby doesn't take away reasons to just talk to others. In other words, it doesn't tell you more than you need to know about other people.
Not to be a sycophant, but yes, we are better than what most people think of as social media(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) That isn't because we pride ourselves in being smarter, which I'm not claiming.
> As stated by others, Hacker News doesn't have a team of psychologists working to addict you to its content so they can then gradually replace that content with ads.
I dunno, this feels like more of a difference in degree than in kind. HN does have secret content-ranking algorithms (that are clearly optimised for engagement in some capacity - don't tell me it's not addictive!) and opaque moderation. Periodically, hiring "ads" for Ycombinator-funded companies appear mixed in - indeed, in a sense the entire site is an advertisement for Ycombinator.
And it does punish you for using a pseudonym, after a fashion - new accounts are flagged green, and comments are ranked not just by vote but by the user's accumulated karma. So there is an incentive to have just one "main account", which naturally compromises anonymity in the long run, effectively by "hosting their life stories" (you can extract a lot, I imagine, from years of HN postings). Nor can you delete content, unlike Facebook I might add, and also unlike Facebook it's publically hosted forever. In real terms, HN is more hostile to user privacy - it's just more transparent about it.
Anonymity and pseudonymity, while similar, are not the same. The mods have been clear that one goal of HN is community, which is really only possible when people have some identity, even a pseudonymous one, to maintain continuity. So, while you’re right that having a single, pseudonymous account compromises anonymity, that anonymity isn’t a goal.
Also, without knowing the voting on comments, how can you confirm that comment ranking is based on a member’s accumulated karma? From my observations, comments are primarily ranked by their votes and when they were made. One might see that higher karma members have more comments that are higher ranked (though I’d like to have numbers to back that up), but a reasonable explanation (also unprovable without some crunching) is that (a) higher karma members contribute better comments on average, (b) are more visible and more popular, and/or (c) comment more on average. All three of these would contribute to seeing higher karma members’ comments higher ranked: there are more of them so you’re more likely to see them, and they’ll on average get more votes due to quality and/or popularity, so they’ll be higher ranked.
I’d like you to expand on what you mean by “[content-ranking algorithms] clearly optimized for engagement in some capacity.” Again, what do you see that isn’t explained by member votes, flags, and/or moderator action (as described in the FAQ)? “Algorithm” implies there’s some automated process going on. I don’t see behavior that necessitates such an algorithm.
That said, there is an algorithm that affects ranking: the overheated discussion detector. That pushes down ranking. One could argue that this is an example where they’re penalizing engagement, rather than optimizing for it.
So the better question for this crowd should be: is Hacker News any better than Facebook?