Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The world isn't that simple. A person's reasons for talking about something and their framing and slant/bias deeply affect the trust one can put in what they say. You can avoid outright lies and untruths while still pushing a very specific agenda.

Just as you put more or less trust into what the people in your life say, based on their history, you should put more or less trust into what particular articles say, based on the article writer's history.




The beauty of reading an essay or article on HN is that you don’t have to trust the author. You get to take into account upvotes and downvotes, as well as comments about the factual accuracy of the article.

Same for comments.

By all means dismiss facts if you don’t like the source, or wait until someone you trust (or don’t distrust) writes about the subject if you like, everyone gets to have their own strategy for consuming information.

But for me, one of the great advantages of HN, one that outweighs things I dislike, is that I can read informative things from people I’d otherwise dismiss and learn a great deal from the discussion.


My trust in random article writers that happen to appear in HN is already low, as it should be. I'm not sure why this one specifically deserves a takedown, which are not at all common on HN, except for the fact that he happened to criticize Tesla, which triggers some people.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: