[ineedasername]

I’d encourage a change of labels away from “friend/foe”. It may seem minor but the subtle loaded nature of those paired terms encourages an adversarial stance rather than one of productive discourse. It’s not catchy so there’s probably better than this but, just as an example— “engage/ignore” could better signal to the user a neutral “do I want to bother with this person?”

[derefr]

That would imply a slightly different semantics than what the extension currently provides, though.

If you truly want certain users to be "ignored", then you probably want any of their comments (and the subtree of descendant comments) to be hidden/collapsed/made less legible, so that you don't accidentally read them, and thereby don't accidentally get rage-baited by them into wasting your day arguing with them. Same as e.g. kill files on Usenet.

Given that this comment collapsing/hiding/visibility-decreasing is something already built into HN (for comments/subtrees with strongly-negative score), it'd be really easy for the extension to hijack this functionality for its own purposes... if it actually wanted the red button to mean "ignore".

That the extension doesn't do that, implies to me that the extensions intended semantics for "foes" isn't "I don't want to engage with this person" but rather "I want to notice this person more." Perhaps "so that I can take the opportunity to actively antagonize them / argue with everything they say."

(I'm not saying that this is a good thing; just that insofar as "the purpose of a system is what it does", this is the purpose of a plain "foe" signal!)

[logicprog]

Agreed, independent of where the terminology came from, I think if you're trying to promote healthier engagement both for yourself and others using this extension, then not having such adversarial names it's probably a good idea. It should just end up being a sort of web of trust to help you decide what's worth engaging with — and sometimes perfectly valid people that you're not actually enemies with or anything just aren't worth your time engaging with because of fundamental axiological or positional differences.

[jacquesm]

That's just Slashdot's influence. They did the same thing at some point.

[ineedasername]

Ah, okay-- though that doesn't mean the author can't do better, if I'm not just being too nitpicky.

[unethical_ban]

I've wanted something like this for a long time and also thought of the slashdot system. This is directly from that.

[jimnotgym]

I see this as a very hn type commenting. Nitpicking over semantics rather than engaging the whole. Your comment is fine, but the whole response in the rest of the thread is boorish.

I'm fine with friend or foe, because they are in reality, just coloured blobs

[jotaen]

I think there is a difference between “nitpicking” and “discussing” details. I personally do not see any nitpicking in OP’s comment, I rather see it as valuable and well-presented contribution to the general (wholistic) discussion.

To me, your response would have been just fine with only the last sentence.

[cassepipe]

For once a "this is a very HN" comment seems earned but I think it just marks you at not really the target audience for HN

One of the reason we come to HN is that curiosity and caring about details is rewarded and makes for great discussion

Also your comment has no substance. I stand totally unimpressed by your opposition between the whole and the details and I fail to see how this is relevant. Care to explain what tackling the whole would look like ?

Or are you just trying to handwawe away some potential issue you are too lazy to consider just because you like the project ?

Note that IIRC the guidelines ask you to refrain from "This is HN/reddit" comments because they are fundamentally uninteresting (and lazy)

[croes]

Words change perception.

There is a reason why in the current political climate in the US people who don’t agree are labeled literally foes.

Repeat it often enough and your perception will change.

Words have power.

[rustystump]

I like friend and foe far more than engage and ignore. A foe isnt someone you ignore. Ignoring is what builds bubbles. A foe can often be right even if you disagree.

[conesus]

Hacker Smacker doesn't mean you ignore your foes. Their comments are now labeled with the tiny red orb, giving you acknowledgement of how you've felt about them in the past.

I've used this extension for the past 15 years and I can say that I love seeing foes show up in threads. I still read their comments, but I know going into it that I can probably skip it after the first sentence if I recognize that it's more of what I disliked about them in the first place.

This is a time saving browser extension, freeing me up to scan more HN threads. I now often scan a thread to see if there's any friends, foes, or FoaFs inside.

[retsibsi]

That makes sense, but then what is the purpose of the 'foe' label? I can see the logic behind using it as a time-saver (as described by conesus) or a reminder that engagement will probably be unproductive. But if you intend to learn from and engage with the foe, it seems like the 'foe' label is just going to prejudice you against their comments before you read them, without much benefit.

[XorNot]

People I want to ignore I usually disagree with as well, but that's not the problem: the problem is they are repetitive and boring.

[ineedasername]

A foe is also someone you might preemptively punch in the face if they get too close before you could determine if they actually meant you harm right then.

I'd prefer not to label things such that I'm justifying the label's negative potential by the disproportionately small "even if" range of positive ones.

[ehnto]

Agree, one of the great parts of HN is that we can still have wholehearted, earnest discussions with people we disagree with. I don't think bringing the combative nature of other platforms makes sense here. We're not at war with eachother or people we disagree with, as much as most media outlets want that to be the case.

[groby_b]

I'd suggest to move even beyond "engage/ignore".

This is HN. The focus should be "does this person provide interesting or thought provoking comments", not "relationships" or "engagement".

There are plenty of HN commenters whose opinions I absolutely dislike (I'm sure it's mutual ;), but I still read them - they are at least well reasoned or point out missing facts. I don't have to like them to learn from them.

[ting0]

That's such a friend thing to say!

[raddan]

Bring back hot or not!

[WorldMaker]

Follow/Distance?

[conesus]

Ahh, I have you green orbed, and I recognize your username from NB. The system works!

[michaelbuckbee]

"signal/noise" possibly?

[tyre]

favorite / potato

Although there are some commenters I would want to follow because they are potato.

There is something so magical about some of the more delulu Take Havers around here.

[scrozier]

As a boomer, I had fun trying to decode your last sentence!

[pavel_lishin]

potato / tomato?

[polotics]

I propose: Bubble/Whistle