Hostile and unwelcoming is a fair characterization. Not all subjects have been that way, but this one turned out to be hot potato and so I tried to withdraw in the only way available on this site, only to have that used as an excuse to attack me (by an apparent moderator no less.)
There's a reason political topics are discouraged on HackerNews, which is that they too often lead to unedifying discussions like this, in which nobody really learns anything and everyone comes away feeling worse.
Remember, the guiding principle behind the content on HN is "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".
I've read through your comment threads to try and understand why you feel this to be a hostile place.
Personally, I'm quite sympathetic to Milton Friedman's ideas, along with Hayek and other prominent free marketers, and I know that many others on HN are too. I doubt that many people are downvoting you merely for expressing pro-free-market positions.
I can only see a couple of comments of yours that are being downvoted, but because you removed the content I can't tell whether or not that was fair.
What I can say is that whilst some people will downvote a comment just because they disagree with it, more people will do so because the commenter conveys a bad attitude, and is contributing to the very hostility of which you're complaining. I can't say if that's the case in this particular instance, but given how quick you're being to claim victimhood status, I think it's possible.
Why not look at the positives: your account has been active for just 9 days and you already have over 120 karma points. That doesn't sound too unwelcoming to me.
A few downvotes on comments are no big deal; people have all kinds of different reasons for downvoting, and they're nothing to do with you, but rather how you make the voter feel.
In the past I've been quite vocal with some personal insights on health/medical topics, which have sometimes attracted some downvotes, I gather because they're a bit far outside the mainstream for some people to be willing to accept.
But I don't mind; it forces me to keep researching and challenging my knowledge, and working harder to present my positions in ways that are more persuasive, whilst also accepting that some people will simply never be persuaded, no matter how well I do (which is equally true of certain economics concepts).
So please, try not to be too down on the place just because of a few downvotes, and remember that if everyone tries their best to present their ideas in an informative and gracious manner, HN will be an increasingly worthwhile place to discuss interesting and challenging ideas, and we'll all be better off.
> I can only see a couple of comments of yours that are being downvoted, but because you removed the content I can't tell whether or not that was fair.
It wasn't, for the first comment I saw. That comment was making reasonable points in a reasonable way.
> What I can say is that whilst some people will downvote a comment just because they disagree with it, more people will do so because the commenter conveys a bad attitude, and is contributing to the very hostility of which you're complaining. I can't say if that's the case in this particular instance, but given how quick you're being to claim victimhood status, I think it's possible.
You should probably avoid judgemental comments about another poster, especially when you didn't even read their fucking comments.
I've seen quite a few comments on this site that express arguments FOR unpopular views and opinions using quality discourse get heavily downvoted (e.g. AI and abstraction killing off most programming jobs, the un-affordability of the Bay Area, presenting evidence of market slowdowns in the tech sector, anything "conservative" or right wing, anything decently cynical towards Elon Musk, anything debunking AI hype, anything religious or spiritual, anything skeptical of portfolio companies).
Personally, I'd rather this site be an open forum for discussion than a vehicle for plugging our ears and hearing what we want to hear. As such, I really wish I could view all of the redacted comments on here.
Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they should get downvoted.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
TBH a few down votes are not so bad, but the heavy downvotes are annoying... its' the harassment, and the threats, especially from moderators, and the snotty treatment... especially knowing that its' a game of smear the queer.
You respond in anything other than an obsequious manner and you will be kicked while the people engaging in name calling, harassment and stalking (all of which I've experienced on this site in the past) or threatening (Something I've seen moderators do) will get a pass.
No, 100% not being judgemental, just offering the kind of help/advice that I like to receive myself if someone sees me going down a wrong path.
I spent spent several minutes reading his past comments and his bio. The patterns of adopting victim status and of reacting to individual comments/downvotes by tarring the entire HN community with the same brush are plainly evident.
As I said, there's a good chance I would have been supportive of his position, had I had a chance to read it. Even if I disagree with the substance, I'll happily defend/support someone expressing a contrarian view if they're gracious and well-intentioned in their conduct, and I know I'm far from being alone in that regard.
The good news is that 20yrs_no_equity seems to be back in strong form making good comments and getting a decent load of new karma in just the past 24 hours, so all seems well.
I first visited HN in the 2006 or 2007 timeframe. Possibly earlier. I've seen the site evolve, over the years, from a place where free discussion was valued to a filter bubble where having unpopular opinions results in slow banning and hell banning. At the time I redacted these statements, I had just previously seen dang smear another poster with a dishonest characterization of him, when the poster made less than supportive (or mildly critical depending on your feelings) comments about a company that went thru YC. The threat and the implication was clear. Further it was consistent with the past decade of moderation on this site. I'm not painting the whole HN community based on a few days of posting here, I am painting it based on a decade of observation. This includes multiple times where I have seen dang harass and threaten people who later got banned. I knew I couldn't defend the other poster to him, and so I swallowed it and said nothing. And then there was vaeliled threat in this thread as well from someone at YC.
The culture here is faux intellectual where "civil and substantive" is "valued" only when they agree with the ideology. A little bit of deviation is allowed so long as the posters are sufficiently obsequious. If this were not a filter bubble you could criticize a YC company or even YC without being threatened.
But since those who agree with the party line are immune from these threats they do not post "civil and substantive" responses (you are an exception even though I am disagreeing wit you you've clearly tired to be fair) and far too many of the responses to my posts have been... patronizing, obnoxious or intellectually bigoted.
You say "gracious and well intentioned in their conduct"... you should be going after those who are not gracious or well intended in their conduct who are expressing views you DO agree with, not the contrarian ones. The contrarian ones you should give a wider birth. Right now its reversed... you have to be obsequious to express a contrarian view, and those who express the party line view get away with murder. This hypocrisy, especially coming from moderators, pisses me off, especially when wrapped with the smug self satisfaction that is so common on this site. (Example the "civil and substantive" threat above, which is pretending not to be a threat, and thus gives cover for pretending like it isn't a threat but the threat is obvious to the intended target.)
