dude the fact that you are sooo touchy about this and jump immediately to the defensive with this sea lion shit the second someone impugns the conversational style of hn. it really undercuts that sense of detached impartiality you like to front with otherwise.
anyway man we made up our minds already that's kinda the point. hn has a lot going for it but it also sucks pretty hard, in some ways that are very difficult to quantify but nevertheless are real! I'm sorry that hurts to hear and I'm more sorry that you're so sure it can't be the case that you can't see it.
This comment is far below the expected HN standards of civility and decorum ("you are sooo touchy about this" and pointless accusations of "sealioning" in response to a reasonable question would not be generally OK here). I point this out not so much to engage in foolish 'tone policing' and purposely ignore its substantive points (such as they may be - the OP is actually more helpful here! And you have quoted a New Yorker description elsewhere in this thread that also provides a valuable outside perspective; we of course appreciate that) but rather to point out that HN takes criticism of itself very seriously, to the point of routinely giving comments like this one what amounts to special treatment. As a user base, we really, really want to avoid the tone-policing trap. And we'd like to see accurate information about these things even when that's hard to quantify.
that is the point I'm trying to make. we judge comments on how well they adhere to our standards of civility and decorum, but not by their actual effects.
having a mod jump on you demanding peer-reviewed validation if you criticize the place is bad, even if they do it civilly.
hn surely does "take criticism seriously" in the sense that when any is detected, it is fully and publicly focused on. but in all the cases I've seen it comes with a hostile degree and intensity of interrogation that makes it hard to believe it is a good faith exercise in organizational-self improvement. it just puts such a high burden and consequence on publicly pointing out the faults that people don't want to do it.
shit I try not to do it on purpose because it's such a draining unpleasant experience to be the center of attention of dang and whoever has decided to be his crew for the day.
being civil doesn't protect you from these arguments! these things are bad, no matter how civil people are being about them. and I am sometimes not that civil about them, but that doesn't make me wrong, or a moral inferior to people who can keep their cool.
On the contrary, I think HN is trying its best to be a broadly appealing place for intellectually curious folks, especially those who might be interested in tech and the business environment around it.
HN demands other things beyond civility and respect for others of course; we're all well aware that civility alone does not suffice. But it helps enough that doing away with it is clearly unwise, most of all during the sorts of vigorous debates that arise quite naturally in any discussion-focused platform. (Including very mainstream ones like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn etc.) This is not a "moral" point of view, but one that's driven by solid observation of what happens to overall quality when incivility and personal attacks are allowed to fester. Many of us have been on Usenet after all, and can draw from that experience.
> demanding peer-reviewed validation if you criticize the place
This is not what has happened here, and long-time HN users should be well aware of that by now. No "demand" was made backed by mod privileges, least of all any sort of "hostile interrogation", what I saw was gentle pushback, most likely aimed at trying to find ways of making any criticism actionable and part of a potential "exercise in organizational-self improvement".
I also take some issue at the implication that I share dang's outlook on these matters, to the point of acting like his "crew". What I did was merely to point out that your comment was phrased in a way that may well have turned many HN users off from its relevant points, but that it did nonetheless have substantive points to make.
I can't even really engage with this because it's not what I was talking about? any political issues here are far downstream from the larger ones mentioned in that new yorker quote above. which are, sorry to say, completely on display in those two comments.
the point I guess I'd like to make here is that you can be either ruthlessly rational data-bound defender of hn's honor OR impartial mod who applies the rules as written. but not both. or if you have to try to be both at least use an alt or something because these really should be separate roles at this point.
I think it's more important to be as I am, with whatever messy contradictions show up. Partitioning that into abstract roles feels weird and false to me. I wouldn't like to work that way, and it would make the relational aspect between mods and the community much harder. Since the relational aspect is the most important thing, that would be a bigger mistake.
anyway man we made up our minds already that's kinda the point. hn has a lot going for it but it also sucks pretty hard, in some ways that are very difficult to quantify but nevertheless are real! I'm sorry that hurts to hear and I'm more sorry that you're so sure it can't be the case that you can't see it.