The place that was founded on open access had too much openness. They had no way of saying, “No, that’s not the kind of free speech we meant.”
Technical and social issues are deeply intertwined. There’s no way to completely separate them. Having good software isn’t enough.
Constitutions are a necessary component of large, long-lived, heterogeneous groups.
There is always an informal piece of the Constitution. The informal part is the sense of “how we do it around here.”
Handles the user can invest in. A way for there to be members in good standing, some way in which good works get recognized. The penalty for switching doesn’t have to be total, but if I change my handle, I have to lose some kind of reputation or some kind of context.
Here are points we line up with, but not as much. Note how the first one overlaps with the last one above—that's because HN straddles this issue somewhat :
I need to associate who’s saying something to me now with previous conversations. Weak pseudonymity doesn’t work well.
You need some barriers to participation, however small. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some kind of segmentation of capabilities.
I found only one main point where HN differs significantly:
You have to find a way to spare the group from scale. The dense, interconnected pattern that drives group conversation and collaboration isn’t supportable at any large scale. Less is different—small groups of people can engage in kinds of interaction that large groups can’t.
You might think HN was a good match for this too, because we've never tried to juice it for growth, and it's a medium-sized forum by current standards. However, when Shirky says small he means "larger than a dozen but smaller than a few hundred". He recommends finding ways to factor larger groups into smaller ones so that richer interactions can happen. This is something we explicitly do not do, and since HN has millions of readers and tens of thousands of commenters, it's massive by the standard he was writing about.
This is the non-siloed property of HN . It's probably the single most influential aspects of the site's design, and it has many counterintuitive consequences, which I've been writing about lately .
 I asked this in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12208054
 Several of these quotes are spliced from multiple passages.
 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716395 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098
Could have been just amazon employees, might not have been.
I feel similarly about how the discussion goes when people slam Apple.
Are these infiltrators? Or do we have a lot of Amazon and Apple employees? Do developers usually care that much to protect their company online? (I've never been in that situation so I can't say).
It's natural for people to post about what they know about from work, and they're naturally biased in favor of their employer, so that's a thing. Even more of a thing is just that each $bigco has a fanbase and, let's call it, a foebase, and the two of them go at it in every $bigco-related thread.
However, I could argue that HN lines up well with one pattern mentioned in the essay: Identification and vilification of external enemies. For example, HNers typically vilify external groups and people who act or actually are ignorant about encryption and privacy issues -- such as, say, the politicians and industry associations who drafted and promoted the EARN IT act. I don't think this particular example is a negative for HN (i.e., I think EARN IT is horrendous), but I do think the similarity is worth mentioning. I hope HN seeks to minimize vilification in general.
Also, I wonder if HN is susceptible to a pattern that (IIRC) is not mentioned or discussed at all in the essay: Influential communities with large audiences attract ill-intentioned members who infiltrate the community only to influence the larger audience. I hope HN has safeguards against this sort of behavior, though.