I made this tool after spending countless hours bookmarking replies on HN that changed my worldview.
Its stated goal is to encourage the use of data when arguing in debates. It aims to extract debates out of
threads on HN and propose data already used elsewhere on HN to add.
It started with me noticing two ways I experience joy on HN.
The first is when I discover links to obscure data about topics I know nothing about.
The second way is when I stumble upon carefully constructed arguments hidden inside a deeply nested thread.
Previously, there were times when I wanted to retrieve some arguments in their original form
and all my HN-fu ws of no use. I started to track them more seriously and enjoyed having access
to them when needed.
Then covid came. And with it a big amount of debates (and data ) on what to do, with an uneven quality.
I reasoned that if people debating were more familiar with the universe of existing arguments,
of analytical frameworks, they might quickly converge to the area where they have an
original take and add value to the global mind.
First I rely in good part on HN proven ability to police bad behaviour. On top of that, by the very nature of the service and to extract good content, I will be focused on analysing the type of content posted. I will have a greater incentive to detect dishonnest, nefarious behavior.
I think light-astroturfing always happen, here less than elsewhereon the web, probably because it gets called out quickly by HN readers.
And one of the key to having it under control is to bring it out in the open.
It started with me noticing two ways I experience joy on HN. The first is when I discover links to obscure data about topics I know nothing about. The second way is when I stumble upon carefully constructed arguments hidden inside a deeply nested thread.
Previously, there were times when I wanted to retrieve some arguments in their original form and all my HN-fu ws of no use. I started to track them more seriously and enjoyed having access to them when needed.
I was influenced for a long time by both Arguman.org( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10405288 ) and Hypothes.is ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13729525 ), and mulled over doing something similar. I became progressively convinced that it was more important for it to be "joyful" than "useful" and that it should be more organic.
Then covid came. And with it a big amount of debates (and data ) on what to do, with an uneven quality. I reasoned that if people debating were more familiar with the universe of existing arguments, of analytical frameworks, they might quickly converge to the area where they have an original take and add value to the global mind.
I am happy to discuss those assumptions !
Would you be able to isolate sock puppets (people that push agendas for profit or other nefarious purposes)?
I think light-astroturfing always happen, here less than elsewhereon the web, probably because it gets called out quickly by HN readers. And one of the key to having it under control is to bring it out in the open.