This may be a personal style difference, but I find HN to be the least toxic of all social media I’ve tried. LinkedIn would be my example of ultra toxicity – the aggressive positivity there is unbearable. At least on HN people tell you what they think and even use a constructive decently argumented approach to doing so.
HN to me feels like a good technical discussion where people tear apart ideas instead of each other.
But yeah if you put a lot of ego into your ideas, HN must be an awful place to visit.
How did you get from negative sentiment to toxicity? Are those the same to you?
It may be a cultural thing, but I think many people see negative sentiment as a constructive tool and a demonstration of trust and respect among people who recognize each others as robust and capable peers.
Avoiding it is something you do with people who you believe need special delicacy: whether because they've told you so, because they intimidate you, or because you sense something pitiable and fragile about them.
If you can trust that it's given in good faith, and by the guidelines of HN you are asked to, negative sentiment should be seen as an expression that someone thinks you're a fully capable adult and peer. Personally, I deeply appreciate that it's generally so comfortably shared and received here and would never include "toxicity" in one of my critiques of HN.
It's a surprising thing to read someone say!
(Unless you're thinking of the nastiness that can surface on flamewar topics, but there are numerous means by which those get downranked and displaced, and they're otherwise sparse and easy to avoid.)
Negative sentiment is more general than toxicity in my understanding - but it does include it. The fact that the study found HN consistently negative does not surprise me, one of the ways HN is negative (the most disruptive and which makes me post here less often) is indeed toxic comments. But I am still here (in the comments no less) so the benefit still outweighs the pain.
