You're not wrong but what is it about hackernews comments which focus on debunking the utility of something. I feel like the top comment on most articles I see are observing the ways in which something is useless. It's pretty staggering.
Again, you're not wrong, and I'm not even saying these comments are bad or anything. I'm guessing hackernews commentors tend to be skeptics and are tuned to poke holes? But clearly it was posted based on some apparent merit. Other reactions would be totally normal too, like "oh wow, that's really impressive. I didn't know this existed." Or how so much of the real world has been modeled in minecraft (archival libraries, computers using redstone, etc.). Or noting what works they consider worthy of entry in the library.
There's a tendency on the Internet to default to negativity, skepticism, and cynicism. It seems worse amongst programmers and tech people. I think it's just a way of demonstrating how clever the commenter is: I can see through this! And, less charitably, there's maybe a tendency to tear down the work of others as a way of feeling better about one's own lack of accomplishments: sure, I haven't done much, but at least I didn't do something stupid like this!
Is this project useful as a way of circumventing censorship? Nah, almost certainly not. So consider it a thought experiment. An art piece. A way of illustrating the importance of free speech to a younger generation that maybe hasn't thought that hard about it yet. A browsable museum of censorship, the likes of which no government would build. Maybe an inspiration for people to build better tools.
Or just a neat project for people to spend some time working on, that's more interesting than making a copy of Big Ben in Minecraft.
It seems to be trendy these days to be a "doomer."
It's a mindset where nothing good happens in the world, and no cloud has a silver lining. Skepticism is a default, and earnestness or cleverness makes you naive or a sucker who will get their deserved reality check soon enough.
It must be a horrendous headspace to constantly be in.
I think a comment like the one you are replying to is much more useful than “oh wow that’s really impressive”. It provides a place for other people to explain why the thing actually makes sense.
I too never understood how is this project better than a website and thanks to the dismissive comment and the subthread it spawned I now had a chance to read some reasonable explanations.
Sadly, the internet is entirely filled with "wow that's really impressive" on absolute bunk. So my first instinct is to kill, kill, kill whatever is in front of me.
Right, good ideas have nothing to fear from anonymous online commenters giving overzealous criticism. On the other hand, if there's no time or place for criticism of bad ideas, we're all in trouble.
It is, or rather was (sadly it's been deliberately suppressed by the mods of late), the HN culture. It's a part of what makes this place what it is, and was why this used to be a high-quality site.
Again, you're not wrong, and I'm not even saying these comments are bad or anything. I'm guessing hackernews commentors tend to be skeptics and are tuned to poke holes? But clearly it was posted based on some apparent merit. Other reactions would be totally normal too, like "oh wow, that's really impressive. I didn't know this existed." Or how so much of the real world has been modeled in minecraft (archival libraries, computers using redstone, etc.). Or noting what works they consider worthy of entry in the library.