= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on [Link] Noam Chomsky Killed Aaron Schwartz - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (116)
While I said elsewhere that I wouldn't have shared this article on the site, I find it telling that this article started at 6 when I first saw it and is now where it is. I wouldn't have ascribed this much meaning, but if comments like this get heavily down voted too, it fits into a pattern my cluster of users has been noting for several months now.
Perhaps I do need to start my own blog as suggested by some. But as I said I prefer communities to lonely things such as one man blogs, especially if the latter has long periods of inactivity.
Athrelon would you be interested coming on board as a writer? Anyone else interested?
Edit: Details will be arranged via email, if you want to cooperate please PM me with your email address if I don't have it already.
Edit: That this comment is getting heavily down voted just saddens me further. I have always thought I wasn't alone in encouraging LWers to write their own blogs. Some of the things I am interested in may be explicitly banned soon. Some I'm assuming technically probably already are since I haven't received responses to my queries. That I'm not welcomed to write about them elsewhere by a tribe I somewhat identify with is hurtful but steels my resolve.
Edit: This thread seems like a bad location for the post. Made a new post in open thread. Moving Discussion there. ErikM has joined as a co-blogger and I've heard confirmation from Athrelon over email.
If it's telling, what does it "tell" whether it first received the upvotes and then the downvotes, or if it first received the downvotes and then the upvotes?
Something it might tell is e.g. that the downvoters are the people who actually took the time to read the article linked and founds themselves considering it inferior. While the upvoters just upvoted without reading.
But it seems you put more probabilty on a more negative conclusion from the sequence of first upvotes-then downvotes.
Or they could've already read it; perhaps because they subscribed to the RSS feed for new posts (as would only be sane for people who want to read new Moldbug posts, since he updates so sporadically).
My intent is a general warning against formulating hypotheses one way or another on as flimsy evidence as the times each vote occurred, I wasn't intending to commit same sin myself.
I disagree with this analysis, but don't feel it productive to argue about this here. I'm seeing many mind-killed down votes for various comments and articles any argument I make will only inflame the sides involved.
You may be overestimating how many downvotes are due to partisanship - I'm not particularly opposed to Moldbug -per se* (he has interesting stuff to say), but ended up downvoting the post both because of the needlessly trollish title, and the low quality of the discussion it created.
Sure the title is Moldbug's, but I would have much preferred if the lesswrong title was something like "Real vs. fake underdogs" (like you, I wouldn't have posted this article here at all).
Right but its not so much how the article is voted but how the comments are.