I kind of went the other way, I prefer the discussions on HN. Any subreddit that gets over 100K (and arguably fewer) subscribers just becomes a cesspit.
Take /r/ukpolitics for example, back in the day an anarcho-syndicalist could have a debate with a die-hard Thatcherite and while it'd be fairly heated, people tended to know their shit and I'd generally come away feeling like I learned something after reading the board for an hour or so. After 2015 (and even more so after the EU referendum) the subscriber count exploded and now it's a complete echo chamber. Try making an argument that the EU isn't some sort of Star Trekkian utopia or that Scottish independence might cause a lot of economic problems on that board and you'll get downvoted out of sight within maybe half an hour. It's very, very black and white now, the board is so fast that it's all about quick, karma-farming content rather than actual political debate.
I don't know why this seems to be a problem unique to Reddit. HN doesn't seem to have the same issue (at least not to the point it dominates the character of the platform), despite it being essentially a clone of old-school Reddit. It's a problem I'd be interested in knowing more about because I'm working on a platform with user-generated content. It's currently using a very naive "rank by votes, exclude old or heavily downvoted posts" approach but I fear this approach could lead to the same problem as Reddit.
I also went the other way. I feel that Reddit is more like an all-you-can-eat buffet where the content is mediocre at best and toxic at worst. Even on seemingly innocent subs like r/oldschoolcool or r/earthporn people will launch unprovoked attacks to rebut a simple opinion. There's less tolerance for that kind of hostility here I think. The discussions on HN have more substance, are generally topics I'm keenly interested in, and I find less click-bait on here.
The discussion by actually passionate people gets drowned out when subs get too large. It becomes difficult to discuss things beyond an elementary level, as newcomers may not have the experience with a topic that longer subscribers would have.
If you look at old HN threads, it feels more intellectually curious than today. But HN today is still very good. I wouldn't compare HN of today vs. 5 years ago, to say, what's happened to /r/financialindependence over a similar timeframe.
> HN doesn't seem to have the same issue (at least not to the point it dominates the character of the platform), despite it being essentially a clone of old-school Reddit.
That is because PG sets clear rules and actively experiments with techniques to keep HN’s integrity intact, and since HN discussions are usually of the more intellectual variety, it’s harder for shit-posters and bottom-feeders to find traction here with low effort comments.
>That is because PG sets clear rules and actively experiments with techniques to keep HN’s integrity intact, and since HN discussions are usually of the more intellectual variety
I hate to say it, but HackerNews is just another forum. It has its own political bent and biases (sometimes hard to see unless you step outside them). The level of discourse is better than some, and worse than others, but not particularly special in that regard; there are many good subreddits, too.
> I don't know why this seems to be a problem unique to Reddit. [...]
I think it's a matter of scale.
Reddit gets a couple magnitudes more traffic than HN. When your userbase is smaller, it's easier to keep it civil. Also, HN has a very strong stance against low-effort shitpost comments. They are quickly flagged and removed by moderators with a comment explaining the policy with a link to the guidelines. That's not to say HN is a "NO FUN" zone, but the funny comments are usually at least clever in some way, and not the same damn joke that has been told a million times.
Take /r/ukpolitics for example, back in the day an anarcho-syndicalist could have a debate with a die-hard Thatcherite and while it'd be fairly heated, people tended to know their shit and I'd generally come away feeling like I learned something after reading the board for an hour or so. After 2015 (and even more so after the EU referendum) the subscriber count exploded and now it's a complete echo chamber. Try making an argument that the EU isn't some sort of Star Trekkian utopia or that Scottish independence might cause a lot of economic problems on that board and you'll get downvoted out of sight within maybe half an hour. It's very, very black and white now, the board is so fast that it's all about quick, karma-farming content rather than actual political debate.
I don't know why this seems to be a problem unique to Reddit. HN doesn't seem to have the same issue (at least not to the point it dominates the character of the platform), despite it being essentially a clone of old-school Reddit. It's a problem I'd be interested in knowing more about because I'm working on a platform with user-generated content. It's currently using a very naive "rank by votes, exclude old or heavily downvoted posts" approach but I fear this approach could lead to the same problem as Reddit.