> the prevailing opinion on this site is that work isn't the place to have those discussions, and that people who do should expect to be fired.
I think this often repeated myth of the HN hive mind¹ is both wrong and harmful². Yes, there are several people on these discussions who fit into the mould you describe, but there are also many who think that position is crazy and dehumanising and say so.
Literally every time I see someone on HN complaining the website has a prevailing opinion, I could think of counter-examples. I think we (people) may have a tendency to focus on the negative opinions that boil our blood and become blind to the voices in support.
¹ Not your words, but it encompasses the sentiment.
² It perpetuates a stereotype and prevents people with different views from joining the site or its discussion, narrowing the amount of differing views.
> I don’t think you’re being fair, and I do think this often repeated myth of the HN hive mind¹
I think it's totally fair to call the top comment (most upvoted) the "prevailing opinion".
That said, I suspect it's a side-effect of HN's voting ethos (don't down vote because you disagree, which is lopsided because its opposite - people upvoting because they agree - happens disproportionately, generally the comment that activates the most would-be voters wins, unemotional comments that confirm boring old truths rarely do, unlike the incendiary ones about how $GROUP is ruining the tech workplace.
I would disagree. As a counterexample, if there are two contradictory comments with high upvotes, the one that is most upvoted isn't necessarily the prevailing opinion.
I disagree with you - close to 100% of people who open the comments will read the top comment. Less than 100% will read the next highest top-level comment - the reply/rebuttal to the top comment gets more eyeballs than the #2 top-level comment.
There are some comment threads I close after reading only part of the first thread, for various reasons.
Right, and that's part of the problem -- the top comment usually has a lot of replies, and so the 2nd-top comment isn't seen as much. So even people who might agree with the 2nd-top comment a lot more than the top comment might not even see it, and not upvote it.
(And especially if you see the top comment, and disagree with it vehemently, you might dig through the replies to that comment and start posting rebuttals. You might get tired of the topic before you get down to the 2nd-top comment, and leave the submission or the site entirely.)
Being the top comment is self-reinforcing, even if other comments actually do reflect the majority opinion better. I don't think we can say that the top comment is the majority/prevailing opinion. That's just the opinion that, due to lucky/random circumstances, got the most initial views and upvotes by people who agree, which then feedback-looped itself into staying the top comment.
> I don't think we can say that the top comment is the majority/prevailing opinion
I just realized were using different meanings of prevail - you (and likely gp) are using it as a synonym for majority/widespread, I was using it as a synonym for victorious or overcoming competing top-level opinions. Re-reading gps comment, the majority interpretation is clearly the ine they intended, but ai feel its self evident that the most-voted comment had the most people agreeing with it.
> you (and likely gp) are using it as a synonym for majority/widespread
I was, yes, hence the “hive mind” reference.
> but ai feel its self evident that the most-voted comment had the most people agreeing with it.
Maybe, but you can only say that for that specific submission at the specific point in time you looked at it, it can’t be extrapolated to the “prevailing opinion on this site”. The time at which one looks at a thread makes all the difference. I’ve seen stories explode to the front page, then get flagged, then unflagged, the top comments being replaced with the previous opposite opinion.
> I think it's totally fair to call the top comment (most upvoted) the "prevailing opinion".
I don't think that's fair at all. Moderation/voting isn't a perfect reflection of a site's tastes. HN's seems to be better than most at reflecting that, but sometimes a post gets popular long-term because it got popular initially, and sometimes that's just luck of the draw.
> don't down vote because you disagree
This is repeated a lot, but isn't true or correct. A lot of people do downvote because they disagree (myself included, though I try not to downvote when I disagree but also think it's a substantive, thought-provoking comment), and there's a comment from pg from many years ago (can't seem to find it) where he says that's a perfectly acceptable reason to downvote.
I think this often repeated myth of the HN hive mind¹ is both wrong and harmful². Yes, there are several people on these discussions who fit into the mould you describe, but there are also many who think that position is crazy and dehumanising and say so.
Literally every time I see someone on HN complaining the website has a prevailing opinion, I could think of counter-examples. I think we (people) may have a tendency to focus on the negative opinions that boil our blood and become blind to the voices in support.
¹ Not your words, but it encompasses the sentiment.
² It perpetuates a stereotype and prevents people with different views from joining the site or its discussion, narrowing the amount of differing views.