>I'm not sure where some folks got the idea that they could say whatever they wanted in whatever community they wanted and not expect any reactions
Usually, historically, if you said something someone didn't like you could expect the person to either confront you directly, or to silently change their opinion of you and possibly change their behavior, perhaps to your detriment. Even before the Internet existed, there was something else someone might have done, which is to send you an anonymous note reading "fuck you". No argument, no way to reply, nothing but a cheap gratuitous offense that serves no purpose other than upset the person who receives it. I argue that downvoting a comment you don't like is equivalent to that.
> Even before the Internet existed, there was something else someone might have done, which is to send you an anonymous note reading "fuck you". No argument, no way to reply, nothing but a cheap gratuitous offense that serves no purpose other than upset the person who receives it. I argue that downvoting a comment you don't like is equivalent to that.
A better equivalent would be arguing from an anonymous throwaway account (*cough*), where any replies go into the void, rather than to an established community member.
A comment either adds value in people's opinion, or it detracts, or neither. The society that is HN has a voting system to communicate that info, because that is what we prefer.
If people find the non-meta substance of a post interesting enough to reply, they absolutely will do so. But we have the guidelines recommending against moderation meta-discussion because you and the moderation of your comment aren't the topic, and you shouldn't try to make it the topic, because we find that to be more boring than the actual topic. Maybe you find yourself more interesting, or you think conversation is boring unless it includes moderation meta-discussion. In most cases, I don't think others agree (hence the guidelines and the voting).
You can call our society an "in-group", you can call someone who ignores what society wants an "out group member", but in the end, I don't know why it surprises people that society responds with feedback (though perhaps not in the exact feedback format one may personally prefer).
>A better equivalent would be arguing from an anonymous throwaway account (cough), where any replies go into the void, rather than to an established community member.
I don't agree with this. How can you say that your reply "goes into the void", just because the name of the account you're responding to is "throwaway892238" rather than "fluoridation"? In either case there's a person on the other end, how does the screen name they go by change anything? I could equally say that unless you tell me your real name, or unless you let me put my hand down your pants, or any other equally arbitrary standard, I don't consider you a real person. Neither the screen name, nor their real name, nor what's in their pants, is what the actual person is.
> How can you say that your reply "goes into the void", just because the name of the account you're responding to is "throwaway892238" rather than "fluoridation"?
I have no idea which of our community members any given throwaway is, I'll never know, their comments are just anonymous notes left with no way to respond to an actual member of our community with an actual history and an actual reputation (vs a throwaway they may never check again). That's why a throwaway comment is like an anonymous "fuck you" note. Or, put another way:
> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.[0]
My point is further supported by the rest of my post that you responded to, which is the substance of our discussion. Continuing to argue over an analogy instead of the substance of the matter would be silly.
Usually, historically, if you said something someone didn't like you could expect the person to either confront you directly, or to silently change their opinion of you and possibly change their behavior, perhaps to your detriment. Even before the Internet existed, there was something else someone might have done, which is to send you an anonymous note reading "fuck you". No argument, no way to reply, nothing but a cheap gratuitous offense that serves no purpose other than upset the person who receives it. I argue that downvoting a comment you don't like is equivalent to that.