思考与写作devonzuegel.com
沉默震耳欲聋
The Silence Is Deafening
2020 — 2022，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Devon Zuegel 的这篇文章指出，线上交流之所以容易变得刻薄，一个关键原因是数字空间缺少现实中那种“不赞成的注视”——没有一种低成本、非对抗性的方式来表达不满。作者探讨了这种反馈机制的缺失如何改变了网络言论的生态。
为什么经久不衰：它触及了社交媒体设计的核心问题：反馈机制如何塑造社区文化，这一讨论在算法推荐主导舆论的今天依然切中要害。
HN 评论精选
可点踩的负面反馈机制是 HN 对话质量高的关键，主流社交平台缺失这一机制。
这篇文章让我意识到，HN 上对话质量高，部分源于可以点踩。Twitter 和 Facebook 只有正面激励，你无法做出“不赞成的注视”的反面动作。更糟的是，算法基于点赞推荐内容，无法区分真正广受欢迎的内容和两极分化的内容。我自己在 HN 上偶尔想说句刻薄话，但知道会被踩，那一瞬间的犹豫通常足以让我意识到“这确实没帮助，不值得发”。如果 Facebook 和 Twitter 也有“不喜欢”按钮，世界会有多大不同？
burlesona查看英文原文
This article made me realize, part of the quality of the conversation on HN comes from the ability to downvote. I’ve never thought about this before, but one of the effects of Twitter and Facebook only having positive reinforcement is that you don’t get the “disapproving stare.” It’s possible for a person to “like” with some degree of anonymity and no effort, but not possible to do the reverse. Worse, since the Algorithms heavily bias content based on “likes,” there’s no recognition of content that is actually broadly liked versus content that is polar. Also, for individual posters in places with downvoting, the little dopamine hit you get from upvotes is heavily countered by the bad feeling of downvotes. I know that in my own participation on HN I will occasionally think of a snarky thing to say, but usually don’t post it because I know it’ll get downvoted, which I don’t like, and that moment of hesitation is usually enough for me to think “yeah that is actually unhelpful and not worth posting.” This all probably very obvious to most of this crowd, but I honestly haven’t considered it before. How different would the world be if Facebook and Twitter merely had dislike buttons to go along with likes?
文章描述的问题其实是 Twitter 特有的设计缺陷，其他平台都有表达不满的机制。
这篇文章准确描述了一个问题，但嘴上说谈数字媒体整体，实际只是在谈 Twitter。每个平台都有“不赞成的注视”的等价物——除了 Twitter：Reddit 和 HN 有可见的点踩，YouTube 的点踩至少能影响推荐算法，Facebook 有皱眉表情。而在 Twitter 上，表达不满的唯一方式就是“加入对话”——从而放大它。这是参与度设计的天才之处（当然是无意的）。Twitter 上的“骗子”问题几乎独有，因为正是平台激励了它。而 Twitter 吸引了大量记者，其激励直接流入国家舆论，造成明显的恶果。
meredydd查看英文原文
This article accurately describes a problem, but while it claims to talk about digital media in general, it is really just talking about Twitter. Here's the giveaway: > A huge part of the problem is that digital spaces generally have no equivalent of a disapproving glare. Every. Single. Platform. has an equivalent to this - except Twitter. Reddit (and HN) have visible downvotes. YouTube's downvotes, invisible though they now are, can at least influence the recommender algorithm. Even Facebook has "frowny emoji" reactions. But on Twitter, the only way to express disapproval is to "join the conversation" - thereby amplifying it, and incurring all the negative consequences Devon explores. It's engagement genius. (Accidental genius, naturally - like most of Twitter's "core game loop", it's an unforseen, emergent phenomenon about which its inventors seem faintly embarrassed). The "grifter" problem Devon mentions exists almost exclusively on Twitter, because it's incentivised by the platform! Normally I wouldn't get so heated about this stuff, but Twitter has attracted a critical mass of the world's journalists, so its incentives flow directly into The National Conversation(TM). This has visibly malign results, prompting many people to look for ways to fix it. This is a noble aim, but won't get anywhere if we regard Twitter's design decisions as immutable and inevitable, rather than a deliberate choice.
实名关联和尊重点踩信号是自我约束、维护社区质量的有效方式。
我怀疑 HN 上很多友善行为是因为人们珍视这个社区，把它当作“职业”环境——在雇主能看到你出丑的地方，最好表现得体。LinkedIn 曾是这样（虽然甜得发腻），但开始变质了。Slashdot 好过一阵，后来 CNN 和 YouTube 放出了他们的喷子，全跑到 Slashdot 去了。我自己曾是个老喷子，Usenet 时代是个混蛋，现在正在赎罪：我把所有参与的地方都关联到真实身份，如果我表现糟糕，你知道去哪找我。我也重视点踩，帖子被快速踩几次就删掉。我尽量不纠缠，争论一两轮就“祝你有美好的一天”，让别人说最后一句完全没问题。
ChrisMarshallNY查看英文原文
I suspect that a lot of the nice behavior on HN is because, for the most part, people value the community, and consider this a "professional" environment, and it's not a bad idea to play nice in places where employers/ees can see us show our butts. LinkedIn was like that (in fact, sickeningly saccharine), but it's starting to fray. Slashdot was good for a while, then CNN and YouTube kicked off their trolls, and they all went to /. It's now the place to go, if you want swastika ASCII art. StackOverflow manages to be a painful place to participate, even though they are sincerely trying to be decent. I think it's way too "gamified," and competitive. For myself, I'm an old troll. I admit that I was a right bastard, back in the UseNet days. I am trying to atone. One of the ways that I do that, is make all my info connected with every place I participate. If I am a jerk, you know where to find me. Alternatively, if I make a good impression, you know where to find me. I also pay attention to downvotes. If a post I make gets a couple of rapid downvotes, I nuke it. Sometimes, I understand why; sometimes, not. It's just not worth it to me. I am also making an effort not to engage too much. I may have a one-or-two-post back and forth, just to see if we can come to an accommodation, then it's "Have a great day!". Totally OK to let someone else have the last word. I have better uses for my time.
匿名使线上交流无法建立信任和关系积累，这是网络戾气的深层原因。
面对面交流很大程度上是在为关系积累“情分”。从初次见面起，你表达自己的想法、寻找与他人思想的交集，对有价值的交集进一步投入。而在线上，你几乎不可能与新用户建立关系并积累情分——双方通常都是匿名的，而匿名与信任相悖，信任又是积累情分的前提。对比 Twitter 和 LinkedIn：在 LinkedIn 上你认识互动的对象，往往私下也认识，所以你礼貌、乐于助人，因为对方有一天可能真的帮到你。Twitter 则像“在所有错误的地方寻找爱”。
11thEarlOfMar查看英文原文
A big part of in person conversations are about building equity in the relationship. Even from the first encounter, you express what you think about and how you think about it and look for places that your thoughts intersect with others. Those that have a beneficial intersection you're likely to explore further, invest more and build more equity. Online, there is little chance that you'll establish a new relationship and build equity with other users. You've got hundreds or thousands of followers, so do they and in many cases, the person you respond to may never see your reply, let alone remember your username for more than a few minutes. These exchanges can be so fleeting because you're both typically anonymous. Anonymity is antithetical to trust and trust is required for equity. There is little that an anonymous person can do for you, and little you could do for them. Contrast Twitter and LinkedIn. Both have feeds and allow messaging and conversations. But since you know the people you're interacting with on LinkedIn, many times personally, you are civil, helpful and courteous because one day they may actually be able to do something to benefit you. You invest in them and building equity in your relationship in expectation that if there is something you can do for them, or they can do for you in the future, it's there to leverage. Twitter just feels like, I dunno, looking for love in all the wrong places? People have a multitude of purposes for engaging online anonymously. Learning or trolling, ego support or battling boredom, maybe a better solution would be to target those purposes as independent platforms and structure the dialog to support the purpose.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选