Dextorious here.

I replied in another comment to most out-of-context quotes of mine used by seliger (a comment which someone already down-voted, because, presumably, the response of someone directly targeted by a post should be hidden into fade-out oblivion).

Now, I'll attempt to reply to his general case, or lack thereof.

One of the main points is that one should only comment only when he has "something useful, unique, original, or non-standard to say".

That doesn't sound like what we call a discussion. Taken to the extreme, it sounds like a dry exchange of scientific papers in comment form: "here's my thesis on this, here's my counter-thesis to your thesis".

For one, all these criteria are highly subjective. One's "useful and original" thought could be an idiotic triviality for another.

Case in point, the "utility of single-use objects". Personally, I don't need anyone to point that utility out to me: I use forks, socks and shaving foam too. And if someone did want to prove the utility of single-use objects to me, a wrist-watch would be a bad example, if he adds that he still carries a smartphone.

That's just one example to show the subjectivity of the notion of "useful and original thoughts".

Want another? Hacker News had for 2+ days a front-page full of articles regarding Steve Jobs. I don't mind, this is what the community voted it wants to see. But does it bode well with the "death to unoriginal/useless content" idea, people seem to want to enforce to HN at the same time?

Before you take it to the comments, have you checked the front page top voted articles? A random example (#2): "Switching Sol Trader from Ruby to C++: one week on".

Is this what is considered a useful, original and non-standard submission? Because it sounds like JavaLobby or WebMonkey circa 2000.

#11 Startups: Don't Host Your Blog on Tumblr, #3 Login to your Google account by scanning a QR code, #5 AWS Free Usage Tier now Includes Microsoft Windows on EC2 #18 Startup will wash your car wherever it is located,

There is better stuff, but you have to hack your way with a machete.

= = = = =

Now, in the context of a thread, someone has three ways to react when met with something he doesn't like: upvote, downvote and answering.

I tend to answer to comments that I find wrong. I also find that it does not take a full-length essay to prove a weak point. Sometimes you only need a line or two. And sometimes you have to state something unoriginal, if only because you reply to something unoriginal.

A comment like "Python's whitespace made programmers avoid it in droves", does not merit a full response, with the whitespace Dijkstra quote and links to the TIOBE index. If you think it does, then you probably have a flawed concept of "discussion" and/or are unpopular at parties.

A proper discussion should have a balance between interesting observations, arguments, counterpoints, nods of agreement, nods of disagreement, and some light stuff thrown in for good measure. And sometimes a plain "what you wrote just doesn't make sense", is needed too, if only to put bizarro ideas in perspective.

= = = = =

I find the below excerpt problematic:

"""But Internet comments tend to degrade as a website grows; it attracts more people who just comment, often in ways that aren’t negative enough to silence through moderation but still annoying enough to lower the quality of the conversation."""

"Lower the quality of the conversation" by whose standards?

Because, if anger against such "lowering of the quality" is not measured by downvotes or negative responses, then the only quality you are alluding to is in your head.

And it's especially ironic to invoke something like the "Dunning-Kruger effect", whereas "the people who are least likely to provide valuable and non-jerky comments are also least likely to realize they’re not doing it".

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a double-edge sword, it's not a free pass to imply "my stuff is golden, yours sucks and you don't even know it".

[Thanks for your downvotes. Way to prove the point that people use downvotes to kill opinions they disagree with, instead of using them to flag offensive / bad comments].