
Is HN dieing? - thiagooffm
So, being in HN for almost a decade(not with this user though) I saw a huge decline not only in the quality, but also I&#x27;ve saw some people claiming there&#x27;s censorship around and suddenly less and lesser upvotes, less interesting content... not to mention that back then, being in a startup was something great, nowadays it&#x27;s frowned upon. Are we starting at the end, or just a new phase?
======
mindcrime
_not to mention that back then, being in a startup was something great,
nowadays it 's frowned upon_

Yeah, there's been a very notable shift here, in terms of the zeitgeist
formerly being very pro-business, pro-startup, pro-innovation, and generally
positive; and now the zeitgeist being very negative, cynical, anti-business,
etc. Not to say that there aren't still voices on both ends of that spectrum,
but the prevailing sentiment has clearly shifted.

I wouldn't say HN is "dying" but it's not the same site it used to be. I
attribute that largely to a change in the composition of the community.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a question I'll leave for the
philosophers.

~~~
PaulHoule
I don't know if I would quite put it that way, but I do remember techno-
libertarianism being the dominant paradigm on HN at the beginning and for more
leftish views to become common over time.

------
warrenm
I've found HN better in the last year or so than at any point since its
inception

~~~
mindcrime
I find the exact opposite. Over the past year there's been way too much
politics, too much anti-business hoopla, too much general news that you can
find anywhere, too much negativity, and generally less focus on interesting
hacker oriented stuff. This site really as become "Hacker" News in name only.
It's now heavily populated by a lot of people who didn't grow up immersed in
the hacker ethos, and who don't share the values, traits and attitudes that
have defined that community over the years.

~~~
enkiv2
I mean, being anti-business is a huge part of the hacker ethos. The whole pro-
startup thing being associated with hackers at all is pretty new. So, by
returning to anti-business sentiments, HN returns to the hacker ethos of
~1994.

~~~
mindcrime
_I mean, being anti-business is a huge part of the hacker ethos._

FWIW, I never really saw it that way... my perception was that it was more of
an "anti BIG business" and "anti proprietary / locked-down / walled garden
ecosystem" sentiment. But that's not the same as business per-se. Lots of
hackers started businesses and even rms says that selling software for money
is fine, so long as user freedom is preserved.

That said, you have a fair point about the startup/hacker "thing" being a
little more modern. Then again, 1994 was a pretty long time ago now. So I
guess one could argue the point about whether that should be accepted as part
of the hacker ethos or not at this point.

~~~
warrenm
>more of an "anti BIG business" and "anti proprietary / locked-down / walled
garden ecosystem" sentiment

The early days of the computer industry, at least, are nothing like that. The
founders of Microsoft were hackers of the highest order, but weren't "anti BIG
business" or "anti proprietary".

Likewise with the founders of Apple, HP, and countless more.

------
dmschulman
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)

------
qwerty1989
I would love to see an overview on their top page. it would bring a lot of
transparency.

------
techno_modus
Entropy grows. Quantity of information drops. Interestingness falls. Is not it
a natural process?

------
marmalade92
an analysis on the top page with time machine would be very interesting
people..

------
mkempe
PG's excellent essays and the attached discussions were a huge positive. They
drew a good audience and helped elevate the discourse.

The new leadership is less intellectual, less inspiring, more inclined to
politics. O tempora, o mores.

------
smt88
> _being in a startup was something great, nowadays it 's frowned upon_

I've noticed this change, and it's one of my favorite things about HN. There
are fewer naive people trumpeting the "accomplishment" of raising money. There
are more people advising young devs not to work for equity.

Why should we worship the idea of a startup? Startups are not noble in and of
themselves. The vast majority are just a form of gambling that only wealthy
people can safely afford[1][2].

As Peter Lynch said, "An investment is simply a gamble in which you've managed
to tilt the odds in your favor." But a startup is _never_ in your favor --
even if you're convinced they are[3][4]. There's still a huge amount of luck
and social capital that's required, beyond just having the right product and
market. Even hyper-successful founders like Biz Stone have gone on to start
failures.

To prove that startups are a gamble, look at VC firms. All but a few are
money-losing operations because _even they can 't predict who will succeed_
\-- and it's all they're supposed to be good at![5]

I think the US is changing (for the better) in the sense that capitalist
ideals, like startups, aren't blindly worshiped anymore. People ask whether we
actually need another to-do app to raise $10M. To me, that's a very welcome
change.

1\. [https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-
gene...](https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-for-
risk-they-come-from-families-with-money/)

2\. [https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/08/startups-a-rich-mans-
game/](https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/08/startups-a-rich-mans-game/)

3\. [https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/11/startup-statistics-
small-...](https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/11/startup-statistics-small-
business.html)

4\. "A company accepted by Y Combinator, therefore, has less than a 1-in-10
chance of being a big success." [http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-
of-success-2013-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-
success-2013-5)

5\. [https://hbr.org/2014/08/venture-capitalists-get-paid-well-
to...](https://hbr.org/2014/08/venture-capitalists-get-paid-well-to-lose-
money)

> _I saw a huge decline not only in the quality_

This is pretty subjective. I still see lots of amazing, fascinating comments
from domain experts and people who are close to stories.

> _claiming there 's censorship around_

There have been moderation experiments, like banning politics for a short
time, but I don't know what else you're talking about. I haven't seen anyone
claim they're being censored, except a few people who are posting truly awful
stuff.

~~~
mindcrime
_There are fewer naive people trumpeting the "accomplishment" of raising
money. There are more people advising young devs not to work for equity._

Yes, but it feels like we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Less
promoting raising money as an accomplishment in and of itself is a Good Thing
in my book (I've actually written on this very topic). But it feels like we've
gone beyond that to a place where innovation, solving hard problems, creating
new things, building new businesses, etc., are denigrated.

 _People ask whether we actually need another to-do app to raise $10M. To me,
that 's a very welcome change._

That's a fair point, but I feel like the change is much broader than that.
It's not just "why do we need this new to-do app" but closer to "startups are
evil in general" here lately. You see a lot of anti-capitalist bullshit and
generally anti-business sentiment on here over the past couple of years. And
given the historical background of this site, that's a pretty major change.

~~~
smt88
> _You see a lot of anti-capitalist bullshit and generally anti-business
> sentiment on here over the past couple of years_

Sure. But couldn't that just be a change in demographics? It certainly
reflects the zeitgeist of the US as a whole. "Late capitalism" and UBI are
commonly-discussed topics now, and that wasn't true a few years ago.

The point of my original comment is that, while I agree some things have
changed, I don't agree that "dying" is an objective or universal way to
describe it.

~~~
mindcrime
_But couldn 't that just be a change in demographics? It certainly reflects
the zeitgeist of the US as a whole. "Late capitalism" and UBI are commonly-
discussed topics now, and that wasn't true a few years ago._

Could be. Probably, even. But I'm not sure that HN "should" mirror the
zeitgeist of the US as a whole (or the world as a whole, and so on). It's back
to the Eternal September thing, where a community with a specific set of
values / beliefs / etc. gets diluted to an excessive degree.

