The reason why hacker news is good is because it remains serious.
It's important to remember that Hacker News is not a democracy. There isn't a voting system so people can democratically decide what content is good or bad. Rather, Hacker News is a dictatorship, controlled by Paul Graham and the Y Combinator. Within this space, the Y Combinator has absolute control over all content.
In a democratic system like Reddit, there might be objections to changing the titles or shadowbanning trolls (reddit does shadowban, but mods can't shadowban people for disturbing the quality of a subreddit). On Hacker News, these features are welcomed because they raise the quality of discourse.
Your only choice when it comes to hacker news is to stay and be a productive member, or leave. You are free to leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay here. The source code for Hacker News is even publicly available; if you want to make Joker News you're free to do so.
In this way, Hacker News circumvents tyranny of the majority in favor of quality of content. (I suspect that it also has to do with the Y Combinator's libertarian politics -- Hacker News is an excellent example of what the world could be like it if were organized into voluntary units with absolute internal control, but free choice and movement between those units.)
> There isn't a voting system so people can democratically decide what content is good or bad.
I'm confused. Comments have up/down voting, and posts have up voting and flagging.
> In a democratic system like Reddit, there might be objections to changing the titles or shadowbanning trolls (reddit does shadowban, but mods can't shadowban people for disturbing the quality of a subreddit). On Hacker News, these features are welcomed because they raise the quality of discourse.
I've seen both people posting "you're hellbanned and it doesn't look warranted" and productive, moderator-accepted complaints about changing titles.
>I'm confused. Comments have up/down voting, and posts have up voting and flagging.
The voting system exists so that the community can raise productive comments, and lower unproductive comments. It's impossible for Paul Graham himself to come to every thread and say which comments are good and bad. We have to help how we can.
>I've seen both people posting "you're hellbanned and it doesn't look warranted" and productive, moderator-accepted complaints about changing titles.
The Y Combinator is reasonable, and human. It has a set of rules it attempts to operate by, but human agents occasionally violate their own rules. Ultimately, all decision-making authority rests with them, not the community.
But the fact they exist is difference enough to demonstrate my point.
"The voting system exists so that the community can raise productive comments, and lower unproductive comments" sounds like "a voting system so people can democratically decide what content is good or bad". What's the distinction you're trying to make?
I accidentally downvoted you when attempting to pinch-zoom on my phone. I'm sorry! I didn't mean to make that mistake. I wish we had the feature to undo things like that.
