I wouldn't call that subthread "strong debate". It's pretty generic - not as bad as a flamewar, but not the curious conversation that we're seeking on HN. It generated some pretty lame replies like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35902713, and seems to have gotten worse as it went along.
Btw I think there's another reason why your comment got downvoted - beginning with a pre-emptive swipe against people who might disagree with you ("There’ll be a bunch of people here saying that capitalism is vicious") is pretty reliably a marker of a low-quality comment. We see it a lot in the form of "I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but..." - which is pretty much an automatic reason to downvote.
I completely understand the desire to protect oneself, but trying to reduce criticism in advance to something simplistic is not how good conversation works. Rather, you should make your best argument in the most substantive way you can, and then let other people speak for themselves.
So I wouldn't say this was a strong example to make a case against HN's voting system. This in fact is usually the case with such complaints, because they're mostly just reactions to the fact that it sucks to get downvoted. It does suck! but the fact that it sucks is not interesting enough to make a whole thread out of. There's a reason why the HN guidelines have long said "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The thing to do when getting downvoted is to reflect honestly on what in your comment might have attracted downvotes. If you find something, consider what a stronger version of your comment might have been, and try to post more like that in the future. If you really can't find anything, look again - because there's nearly always something there. But if not, then chalk it up to the internet being weird, remember that misclicks are a thing, and move on. It's not worth making more of a deal out of.
- there is both up and down voting
- you cannot down vote a direct reply
- there are not moderators, just one (dang), who is very hands off.
- most moderation is done by the community
- certain topics and opinions are regularly up or down voted
- your comments can swing from down to up over time
The system is working as intended, HN still maintains itself quite well using it
If you want a more specific answer to your comment, link it here
Another way to think about this is that the HN community does not reward bad or low quality comments, even if they spur a good debate. There is almost always a better way to say the same thing and create a good debate.
Downvoting doesn’t have a dominant effect on HN dynamics the way it does on Reddit, I think many people take a small insult way too seriously.
The definition of an illiberal society is one that will not consider other views. There are factions & forces, which tend towards certain views, which areess tolerant, which are less interested in picking out embracing & supporting a couple out there ideas, especially if there's some rougher spots that aren't super easy to make it through.
Personslly I'd really love to see a future online system where we really have to stake ourselves in more to vote, and where we can assess & weight people as we desire. I hope this can be useful for identifying & countering more of the negative pervasive forces, but it has plenty of other risks & possible downsides, for sure.
Had a lot of karma collected, then a comment with different opinion against point of view of HN wasted it.
It may be a feature, not a bug because it reinforcing the network of same minded people here, and dicourages different opinions.
As Peter Thiel tells: "Tell me something that's true, that almost nobody agrees with you on."
You won't find this on HN because signal to noise ratio is low in such discussions and you will get downvoted.
Maybe there should be option to sort from most downvoted on the top to fix in some part this issue?