[skygazer]

I also notice the commentariat here is progressive, but it seems the silent but pervasive downvote campaigns are dominated by, or more charitably, inadvertently aligned with those MAGA oriented views. I’ve come to think of the right wingers mainly contributing to the community with their downvotes. Perhaps they don’t feel they would fair well if they tried to engage in discussion? But it’s an interesting dynamic that a group of silent individuals only make their presence known through the conspicuousness of the censorship they leave in their wake.

[datsci_est_2015]

> Perhaps they don’t feel they would fare[sic] well if they tried to engage in discussion?

Most of the time when I do see blatant “rightposting” it’s so misinformed and provocative to be indistinguishable from trolling / baiting, so I can’t even tell if it’s downvotes for disagree vs downvotes for suspected trolling.

The less blatant “rightposting” flies quite a bit under the radar, pretty much by definition, which is what the grandparent comment was probably referring to when they said they interpreted HN as leaning right. More like laissez-faire economics.

[Itoldmyselfso]

Those downvote campaigns could easily come from bots and not real users.

[skygazer]

In light of that possibility, HN's voting system is probably too rudimentary, private and zero-cost for the modern world. Now I'm not sure if it's naivete, laziness or meant to allow opaque maligned censorship.

[tremon]

Most downvote bots still appear to be observing US office hours though. There's a marked difference in voting patterns between the hours that Australia wakes up and California wakes up versus the rest of the day.