Ask HN: The curious case of asymmetric skepticism on HN
I've noticed a pattern where well-supported critiques of corporate practices (pharma pricing, tech monopolies, etc.) are often heavily downvoted without substantive counter-arguments, while pro-business claims face minimal scrutiny.
This selective skepticism creates an uneven playing field: critics must provide exhaustive evidence and perfect nuance, while business-friendly assertions are accepted as conventional wisdom.
Has anyone else observed this? Is there a cognitive bias at work when topics challenge the industry narratives many HN users are professionally invested in?
17 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 49.1 ms ] threadI don't think you can really do that accurately from those inputs.
Only after I had to comment asking for reasons. Also, it's not the first time, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43379510.
> tropey, generic comment
I don't see how it's generic. It's about one specific example of a general trend.
"receiving many upvotes and then downvotes"
The other thing is perspective of what is well founded critique, such as that which you know to be so, and what others would think would be erroneous or at best flawed since the argument put forward might be deemed correct broadly but does not work with the particular instance due to various reasons like owing to context, morality, practicality ... etcetera.
1. Making money. Specifically, making a rich person richer; earning you a margin less than the topmost in your risk class in their portfolio.
2. YCombinator, or startup philosophy. Doesn't rule out critiques of corporate philosophy, your approach just needs to tick more boxes.
3. There's this rule: business itself doesn't hold grudges. The smell of grudge means it's something else -- could be lots of other things: sports (Moneyball), politics (Marc Andreesen is articulate about how to remove ethics from politics), signalling network loyalties (Ivy League), but -- worthwhile or not -- those are costs. Be prepared for any business audience to form a consensus on rules; and in the non-business dimensions, individual humans to self-select.
It's interesting to look outside this, though. It's academically interesting when a project succeeds in defiance of these rules, or any academically-evaluated rules.
I thought of a name for these people:
"Prostrating Putative Oligobros" (PPOs)
(...or "presumptive", "wannabe"?)
#irony
What ever happened to ‘Think Different’?
Why not engage with this argument instead of downvoting?
Are you that keen on proving me right?
With all your flailing of arms, whaling away at perhaps an imperfect system -- my reply to you has been at my cost as well - demonstrating if any thing the point I was attempting to make.
In regard to your other replies to me, perceived agitator was to mean specifically those users in the thread who have made some critique valid or not. As for crying, no not exactly. Some people are particularly sensitive to online arguments or hot debates. I've long been a moderator at a few different forums, and found myself quite surprised by the last people I'd expect messaging me over hurt feelings or inaction on my part. I'd also point out that in this feed plenty of members would feel they're enforcing a flame free area - they don't necessarily have any side or bias.
People have absolutely every right to have feelings.
But this goes exactly to the point: why do people make it personal, when only facts are being discussed?
Specifically facts about economics - repeatedly reported on mainstream media.
(not here, as I for one, abundantly indulged in irony)
I though had earlier made the point there also surely are some sub groups with vested interests and the nature of how they vote and why is not exactly known -- trying to make sense of the way votes go at time is too hard, sometimes it is as it is. Imagine the above example, their initial conclusion it was about the fish would be right if in fact a large group of vegans or animal cruelty had taken offence that one of the fish landed they felt was mishandled.