I say "simply" because, as I mentioned, it's an invariant—possibly the most consistent phenomenon we've observed on HN [1]. I admit I didn't add any substantiation for this! it would have been too much of a digression (not that that ever stopped me).

The interesting question is, if it's so consistent, how can it go unnoticed for a long time (as you've reported) and/or get perceived as one-sided ("HN is so anti-A!") when in fact it is almost always two-sided ("HN users are divided on A")?

There's a clear answer: it's because what you notice depends on how you feel. If you like A, or (more precisely) dislike anti-A, you are far more likely to notice anti-A posts. Not only that, but they will make a stronger impression on you than the median post—even the median pro-A post! [2]

These two factors—frequency of impression and impact of impression—combine to create a strong picture of the site as anti-A—so strong that people commonly use universals like "always" and "never" and "absolutely" when describing it. In reality, HN is a statistical cloud of datapoints and your pre-existing feelings are what determines which datapoints you notice (i.e. frequency) and how strongly you weight them (i.e. impact). [3]

This is why people with strongly opposing views (A vs. B) feel the same about how biased HN is, just in opposite directions! i.e. with the A team convinced there's a strong anti-A bias and the B team equally convinced there's a strong anti-B bias. It's simply (<-- that word again) that their feelings cause them to notice quite different subsets of the available datapoints. Abstract out the directional bit (pro- or anti-A), and their comments become isomorphic.

Unfortunately for us, HN is more afflicted by this phenomenon than sites which allow sharding into siloes [4], whether by social group (e.g. Twitter's follow lists) or content (e.g. Reddit's subreddits). HN is non-siloed, meaning everyone is in the same big community here. As a result of this, you're more likely to run into datapoints you dislike, which by the mechanism described above is more likely to lead to an impression that the community is biased against your view, and (worse still!) more biased against you the more strongly you feel about a topic.

, [editing - bear with me...]

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[2] Lots of past explanation here if anyone wants it: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

[3] I don't mean "you" personally, of course—everyone does it! It's a double whammy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion, sometimes described in this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect.

[4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I would say that HN was at least as sharply negative during the cryptocurrency craze. I recall various submissions asking "Why is HN so anti-crypto?" as well.

It is just a few people. Any time people are unpleasant to others or post in an uninteresting way I add them to a personal list that filters out their comments. Rapidly the site becomes more usable. The negativity is from a few highly polarized individuals.

I know others also do this - though often they are kind enough to auto-fold.

There's probably a lot to say about it's merits or problems, but given the demographics (or my perception of them) is largely "software people" can you really be that surprised or angry given that this could snuff out a _lot_ of people's livelihoods like nothing we've probably seen in our lifetimes?

I think there's definitely groups on both sides, and I feel like it's similar to cryptocurrency a few years back. There's people really into it, and in response there's people really against it. On a smaller scale, see for example rust. In contrast there isn't as much vitriol against, say, world hunger because there isn't people very obviously pro-that to push against.

Same experience. But that's simply because you think you're experienced but the OP knows that you're just deluding yourself. Just kidding.

More seriously, I think this is a true reflection of a cultural phenomena. All discussions have become more polarized. There is a more of a generational divide in perception and discussion. I would also say there is a loss of nuance.

To complicate this even further there is a real diversity of experiences depending on many factors.

I mean we had flame wars on USENET but somehow it feels to me that most discourse even on controversial topics was civil. When we had tabs vs. spaces flamewars (or whatever the fun topic of the day was) everyone knew they were in a flame war (and often acknowledged that). Or maybe I'm just being nostalgic/biased.

I see the anti-AI sentiments in my work place. I think people are genuinely worried/concerned and don't know how this is going to change our world or even where we are exactly. This is also spilling into adjacent areas where people have strong emotional responses to (the rich, the economy, job market, politics, environment etc.).

Its divided because its the first time the previously more class unaware techbros have been critically challenged by the consequences of their actions - oh shit we might lose our jobs.

10 years ago "Disrupting X" was seen as a good thing. Now its come for them its a different story.