That's a serious misperception. Only about 10% of HN users were anywhere near SV, last I checked, and the vast majority of those aren't "powerful technocrats".
I frequently see comments like this setting up (or expressing) barriers between the commenter and the rest of the community, when the truth is that the community is mostly just like themselves. I think it's important to realize this. How can we function as a community if people are suspecting and/or putting down everybody else who's here?
While it might be true that the demographics of the site are 10% SV residents, I do sense a very existent divide here in the interests of the users of this site. And while my initial comment might not have perfectly followed the guidelines, I do often think it's important to push-back against the "money-above-all" culture that often steers this website, or at least the culture that underpins a lot of the discussions.
I think, as the site is founded by a VC firm, there is inherently a large subset of users that are money driven technocrats. And more substantially, I think the resulting culture is a barrier to the actual substance of discussions here and to the impact of discussions/technology/startups/VCs/etc in general. And I broadly disagree with the perspective on community, society, money, and finance that the founders of YCombinator espouse. Views that are also shared by a portion of the user-base here.
Let me label these two communities that I believe there is a barrier between: "FOSS-ers" and "startup-ers". I hope these labels are transparent enough that I don't even need to clearly define them. Thus, what I think that I'm trying to comment on, is that there is a real divide between these communities. Is there common ground? Absolutely. Am I willing to tolerate the "wealth-at-all costs" attitude that is pervasive here? Absolutely not. I think it's toxic and damaging to civil society and I think we're bearing that out at this exact moment in time. And I see HackerNews as an awkward, sometimes beautiful, ground-zero.
Now, to be expressly clear with my position: I'm not anti-capitalism. I wouldn't even call myself a socialist. After all "socialism", as the word is colloquially used in the Anglo world (aka European EU-style socialism), is really just capitalism where some of the taxes are expressly earmarked for broad reaching social programs. I believe in competition and I believe in providing rewards to the people who are willing to take risks and create things in the world. I think that's fantastic.
But I am suspicious of some users here. I think the actions of many VC firms, YC startups and their founders, and the resulting discussions on HN, border very often on anti-social. I don't believe Paul Graham's hypothesis that large sums of wealth aggregated via consumer capitalism is best used by VCs to create good in the world. It's typically used to acquire more wealth via blind consumer-oriented companies, with the occasional benevolent passion project. That wealth in the hands of a sufficiently/correctly motivated government, an institution created to serve the people, would create far more good and is a much better place for that money.
I quite plainly believe that much more good would be created in the world using technology if these people had stricter morals, less money, and less selfish goals. I also believe that their wealth is inherently oppressive, as it bequeaths power to be even more selfish... and motivates others to follow suit. Something I think should be discussed here on this website.
--------------
Now, I know that I'm riding the lines of the comment guidelines here. I know that this is pretty close to an ideological battle. But I hope that I'm closer to "curious thoughtful and substantive conversation" about ideologies on HN than I am to fulminating. I suppose I'll find out in your response.
Thanks for all your effort here dang.
> I know that this is pretty close to an ideological battle. But I hope that I'm closer to "curious thoughtful and substantive conversation" about ideologies on HN than I am to fulminating.
I agree! I'd avoid rhetoric like "The future is for the people" though - internet forums like HN are just not good places for declaiming. It comes across as blaring, sort of like using a megaphone in a living room. But the reason I replied above was not because of any of that. It was because of "the powerful technocrats living in silicon valley, the primary users of HackerNews" and especially the word "primary". That is empirically inaccurate and I think it's part of my job to help this community get a more accurate reflection of itself. So many commenters feel like they have to distance themselves from the rest of the community—or rather, from their image of the rest of the community. Sometimes this comes across as supercilious, sometimes as defensive, but it's the same underlying phenomenon. I think it's a large, significant problem that we need to work on in order for HN to be the kind of place we'd all prefer.
Btw I wrote about that here last year, if anyone is interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.
I appreciate the correction of primary, I agree it's an unnecessary broad characterization. I also understand your concern with the "distancing" you're referring to, however:
I think there's a subtle line between being willing to engage with someone the way you speak of and tolerating behavior that is socially toxic. If there's something I feel like has been learned over the last 30 years, it's that some portion of the population (the term "privileged" is often used here) are enabled by society to be deaf in their actions and the impacts of those actions on others. Whether the "privilege" causing their deafness be power that is rooted in money, race, or simply being member of a majority in some sense... the impact is the same. They need to be hit over the head with the mirror of what they are creating and, yes, sometimes that action is a bit emotionally violent. Or, in your language, sometimes that requires creating a characterization/image of their actions which can sometimes look similar to what you are calling distancing. I think the unfortunate simple difference between being unnecessarily divisive in your commentary (which I think is a summary of what you're asserting I've done) and calling people out for their bad behavior... is simply whether your characterization of their behavior is accurate or not. I hope I'm being fair and accurate and I think you've done a good job in pointing out the ways I was not.
It's also worth saying that most of the people here are developers, academics and general nerds. You might want to pay more attention to the replies on the major posts to get an idea of where people are coming from. You might also benefit from a closer reading of what the current leadership of YCombinator have said recently. Lot of sustainability and basic income there.
It looks like you've created a straw man that you hate very much. It's like trying to blame all of "America" for the perceived evils of capitalism. The entire hackernews community is too big and too diverse to be your opponent in that debate.
I read a lot of the conversation here every day and I've read a lot of the statements from the current leadership of YCombinator. And I think it's a gross attempt to undermine the discussion by asserting that I must not read anything because I could only be so wrong if that were true.
While I understand your comment that HN is a diverse site, and you are very correct there, I am not trying to make all of HN my opponent in this debate. I'm very plainly, although maybe I did poorly, hoping to make an opponent of a specific -- and in my opinion very common -- mindset on HN. With the goal of deconstructing it and ideally maybe even dismantling it.
To that end, I don't agree at all the YC leadership is doing a meaningful job of actually addressing sustainability via their practices as a business. I have read the words that you're referring to, which IMO are aimed at discussing sustainability. However, their practices are in direct opposition to those ideas. The startups they fund, the businesses they push to IPOs, and the monologues that they write on their blogs are far-more-often-than-not geared toward one goal: making money and expanding YC and the reach of tech related businesses, IMO without much regard for the impact it has on the world. I recognize that this is an opinion, and you pretty obviously aren't sympathetic to it, but it's fairly empirical in terms of substantive projects that YC has pushed hardest financially/philosophically. It's also empirical in terms of the replies on major posts, particularly the entrepreneurial ones.
And because you've implied this is off topic on a post about lichess, I should also clarify: I see the goals and accomplishments of lichess to be worth even more when juxtaposed against these YC culture. Especially knowing that someone like ornicar faced a very real choice when deciding to pursue lichess as his primary endeavor. I think he deserves to be applauded not only on his own, but also in that context. I also think it's no coincidence he is from France. Les français sont beaucoup plus à l'aise dans l'idéalisme, il me semble.... surtout par rapport aux américains. Mais pourtant ça sert aussi à créer son propre ensemble de "problèmes uniquement français"
I actually feel like there’s a lot less readers from the VC/entrepreneurship crowd on HN than in the early days (or maybe they were never a big percentage to begin with)
Feels to me like by far most of the readership here is your typical 9-5 salaried tech worker who has never engaged in entrepreneurship nor has any desire to
Granted within that group there might be a lot in the “VC camp” that glamorize VC/startup culture and values
(link just goes to guidelines site which does not discuss demographics)
