Comment by jack_h
4 months ago
I think the incentive structures created by adding the concept of voting and flagging posts destroy the possibility of productive conversation long-term. If a user can control the visibility of opinions with less effort than defeating those opinions through debate then that mode of operation will end up dominating. Throw in enough users who have similar beliefs within this incentive structure and you start seeing some narratives promoted through upvotes and others hidden through downvotes and flagging. HN obviously has some magic sauce and wonderful moderators to try and prevent this, but I think they're fighting a losing battle just like every other online forum with similar mechanics.
There is a reason “Most stories about politics […] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon” is the first guideline about what not to post on HN.
Political discussions quickly lead to polarization and abuse of the vote system. Doesn’t help that 90% of comments are simply parroting known opinions and not offering anything of particular interest for most readers.
True, politics tends to amplify this problem quite a bit as people tend to be very emotionally invested. I have absolutely noticed this same phenomenon at work in non-political stories though and the problem seems to be getting worse, although that is just from personal observation. Hence why I said that long-term these incentive structures dictate behavior; they don't manifest immediately and simultaneously.