Let&#x27;s not get caught up in definitions. I called it snark because it was sarcastically dismissive. We can use a different term if you prefer.<p>Snark varies mostly by commenter, not by topic, which implies that people do it for personal reasons (e.g. how they&#x27;re feeling, or habit) and also that it&#x27;s off-topic, even when the point you&#x27;re trying to make is not, as with your comment above. It has two bad consequences for HN: it degrades the channel by adding noise, and it acidifies the culture, making it hostile to new work and new ideas. Those are the things we care about.<p>Many HN users, including me, have gone through the process of figuring this out in our own case and learning to mostly edit the snark (or bile, or dimissiveness) out of our comments. Perhaps you would be willing to do this if you realized what HN is trying to optimize for, which is curiosity—not any of the things you&#x27;ve listed here. I wouldn&#x27;t want to participate in those either.<p>Once one realizes that snark is optimizing for a personal discharge at the expense of the community and quality of the site, it becomes fair to edit it out of one&#x27;s comments, for the same reason one doesn&#x27;t litter.