upvote
deleted
reply
I missed the earlier drama, but it looks like Peter Steinberger has attacked HN as a whole in response to the comments you’re calling out:

https://xcancel.com/i/status/2025334681047015791

Personally I find his attack on HN to be a bad-faith generalization. In a reply to his own post, Peter shared an example of a personal attack that originated from Twitter/X (https://xcancel.com/steipete/status/2025354408700113274) and not HN. It seems purposely inflammatory to associate HN with the type of attack he gets elsewhere.

I also saw Andrej Karpathy reply to this post from Peter and he supported Peter’s take on HN (https://xcancel.com/karpathy/status/2025352414648566071). Weirdly, he doesn’t care about the toxicity problems on Twitter/X either, or that he is a close associate of Elon Musk, who regularly calls for remigration, AKA ethnic cleansing. Yet he has the nerve to call HN toxic.

These people are propagandists, spreading a false take about the HN community. What’s actually happening is that they don’t care about the much larger toxicity on the platforms they use like Twitter/X, because it does not affect them personally. They don’t care about THAT toxicity. But if a couple users on HN attack them, suddenly this is a problematic platform. In other words, they’re willing to overlook all the harm suffered by millions of people (mostly minorities) due to Twitter/X but they will not tolerate a single harm to themselves. To me, that’s the behavior of selfish propagandists.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Being rude isn't helpful. It's not their fault, it's the unavoidable reality of treating complex social signalling as one-dimensional. At minimum Hacker News would need to separate approval/disapproval signals from assessments of whether a comment is constructive. That’s not a simple change given the obvious abuse vectors. It would require reliably distinguishing good-faith participants from bad actors. It can be done, but it's not easy.

The main reason sites avoid this approach is institutional rather than technical. Adding algorithmic mediation invites accusations of algorithmic bias whenever results are unpopular.[0] Simple manual interventions are often sufficient to nudge community behaviour so that majority outcomes broadly align with the moderators’ priors, without the visibility or accountability costs of a more complex system.

[0] Case in point being X. People routinely accuse the new management of "juicing" the algorithm to favour their politics, when outcomes are adequately explained by the exodus of contributors on the other side. Isolating innate community bias from algorithms is a philosophically impossible problem.

reply
It's not 'downvote abuse' if it's working exactly as intended. The community decides what's 'perfectly fine and neutral.' If your comments follow the guidelines, at least they won't get deleted.
reply
When I review the link posted by @dang it says talking about downvotes is boring. Maybe that's why your comment is grey. (This comment should turn grey as well)
reply
[flagged]
reply
What is there to be furious about?
reply
Managers will be starting to ask for claws in the development flow, claws for automation, etc. Another flashy trend everyone will have to endure because an influencer is hyping the tech. It happened in 2024/2025. Every manager demanding use of "vibe coding", because they bought the lie that is what everyone is doing and is the best thing since sliced bread and whatnot. Karpathy comes up with a new shit to hype, and everyone will jump on the bandwagon. It's exhausting. It's like when there was a new frontend framework every single month and everyone just following the trend. Backbone is good enough. Then Vue. Then react. Then angular. Then svelte. Then SolidJs. Then Astro. Probably now everyone and their mothers will try to come with another abstraction layer on top of llms, then on top of agents, then on top of claws. Like I said, it's exhausting and the ROI of jumping every single fucking trend is becoming really hard to see.
reply