Ask HN: How to keep an online community from downgrading to Reddit like quality
Lately I've been wondering after joining Hn and learning about what it is, is it possible to keep an online community from turning into Reddit or even 4chan? The opposite of that is Stack Overflow, which in an attempt to avoid decrease in quality, established itself as a toxic over moderated community, where almost everything gets downvoted and closed, and if not, edited to be so far from the original post that the entire question changes. As opposed to Reddit, which is so full of superficial fluff and under moderation that it is more of a place were people go for like/upvotes/karma. Not for discussing or creating something of actual value. So I ask, do you think it is possible for an online community to keep itself in that sweet spot between Reddit and Stack Overflow for as long as it is relevant? Also, where is Hn in that spectrum?
39 comments
I've thought about this a bunch. While endless variables I suspect the key one for HN is controlling the posts and the front page.
The more in depth technical & startup focused they are, and the lower the ratio of more community/political/front page news topics the less you are going to attract 'the downgrading type'. If a good ratio of the front page is for lack of a better examples, 'technical debates on java vs python' or 'algorithms you admire' its going to steer a bunch of people away, and probably the people you dont want for the more general conversations.
That said, I really enjoy the current news topics being discussed here as on the whole you get interesting takes, but the more you open that door, the more it will attract people focused on that side of life than tech/startup and the decline happens.
The other though I've had on this is rather than a voting up/down system, put a few checkbox tick/cross options for things like: adds value, polite, fact based, funny and 1) run user/page scoring algorithms on those plus 2) Have a exam for rules and maybe general knowledge for people that either have many negatives or vote in ways that dont support community rules/values. I suspect it would just steer people away in but Id be interested in seeing it tried and if it steered away the chaff alone, or everyone.
The more in depth technical & startup focused they are, and the lower the ratio of more community/political/front page news topics the less you are going to attract 'the downgrading type'. If a good ratio of the front page is for lack of a better examples, 'technical debates on java vs python' or 'algorithms you admire' its going to steer a bunch of people away, and probably the people you dont want for the more general conversations.
That said, I really enjoy the current news topics being discussed here as on the whole you get interesting takes, but the more you open that door, the more it will attract people focused on that side of life than tech/startup and the decline happens.
The other though I've had on this is rather than a voting up/down system, put a few checkbox tick/cross options for things like: adds value, polite, fact based, funny and 1) run user/page scoring algorithms on those plus 2) Have a exam for rules and maybe general knowledge for people that either have many negatives or vote in ways that dont support community rules/values. I suspect it would just steer people away in but Id be interested in seeing it tried and if it steered away the chaff alone, or everyone.
I agree. A problem arises though when moderation goes too far and a website/forum/online community is turned into a Stack Overflow, a useful place but way to over moderated, with established users being very toxic to new ones.
The first thing for me is: moderators must not be chosen by the community but by the "admins", as it was in the old forums
Moderators chosen by the community contribute to the echo chamber of the community itself and bend the rule in that direction, making the whole subsection more and more polarized in that sense.
Moderators chosen by the admins should me more impartial, potentially taken from outside the community itself, paid for their jobs so they adhere to the general rulebook, and keep all the sections as neutral as possible, encouraging exchange of conflicting opinions without flame.
Moderators chosen by the community contribute to the echo chamber of the community itself and bend the rule in that direction, making the whole subsection more and more polarized in that sense.
Moderators chosen by the admins should me more impartial, potentially taken from outside the community itself, paid for their jobs so they adhere to the general rulebook, and keep all the sections as neutral as possible, encouraging exchange of conflicting opinions without flame.
I've noticed that democratic communities fall apart fast. Democracy works for countries, but on a forum, people will just leave and self-select. If a community leader is unpopular enough, it will branch into a new one and grow or die.
Edit: However I would add that democracy in the form of downvotes and flags usually work well. It can backfire especially around hot topics, but a moderator can usually judge whether or not it is. Such moments are very tough on mods though.
Edit: However I would add that democracy in the form of downvotes and flags usually work well. It can backfire especially around hot topics, but a moderator can usually judge whether or not it is. Such moments are very tough on mods though.
Is this really a hard and fast rule, or is it more that you think we should avoid the dumpster fire that is the Reddit mod ownership situation?
It's down to curation and self-policing. I regard both of those as motivation led and requiring periodic re-inforcement.
Hn is mostly in a sweet spot and moves between brilliant and worrysome.
Some people dislike it intensely, and semi-troll about both "dang is a dictator" and "you are hive mind, you have no freedoms here"
This isn't a free speech channel: its a private domain, it's used under terms, and we respect that to achieve an outcome of mutuality. If you don't like the terms of the mutuality, or the outcome, you probably don't fit, but you arn't excluded as much as you get signals of disrespect and occasionally get told you aren't being heard, noting that there are ways to see everyone, the flagged included.
I don't entirely understand the shadowban method as applied here, I don't even know it exists: It would not necessarily be wrong because its a method, a mechanism which has immense power.
In the forward life of Hn I expect a couple of things. Firstly, it will change. Secondly, it may not change for the better: it's not a given. Thirdly, it could even break down entirely.
It's not a forum, but ALDAILY is an example of an individually curated space which changed hands. An interesting question: can Hn survive a change of hand on the tiller?
George Megalogenis is an Australian political commentator who ran a blog with comments for while which had this header: "My house, my rules" and he admonished posters in public (which is rarely considered appropriate) saying "nope: you're a mind-sucking troll. good bye" and the like. It was a good non-snarky conversation under his house rules.
[Edit: I should add, I've penalised here for being off topic and unhelpful, for being random, reddit-like, for being silly and abusive. I don't approve of my own behaviour all the time, the point is not to be driven away, the point is to learn how to adopt the mode which works here. If that kind of conformity to norms displeases you, then it can be hard to sustain being here, but I don't personally regard it as an onerous burden any more than being asked to be civil in public discourse is. I was also a heckler in my student days, fun times, but I wouldn't do that now]
Hn is mostly in a sweet spot and moves between brilliant and worrysome.
Some people dislike it intensely, and semi-troll about both "dang is a dictator" and "you are hive mind, you have no freedoms here"
This isn't a free speech channel: its a private domain, it's used under terms, and we respect that to achieve an outcome of mutuality. If you don't like the terms of the mutuality, or the outcome, you probably don't fit, but you arn't excluded as much as you get signals of disrespect and occasionally get told you aren't being heard, noting that there are ways to see everyone, the flagged included.
I don't entirely understand the shadowban method as applied here, I don't even know it exists: It would not necessarily be wrong because its a method, a mechanism which has immense power.
In the forward life of Hn I expect a couple of things. Firstly, it will change. Secondly, it may not change for the better: it's not a given. Thirdly, it could even break down entirely.
It's not a forum, but ALDAILY is an example of an individually curated space which changed hands. An interesting question: can Hn survive a change of hand on the tiller?
George Megalogenis is an Australian political commentator who ran a blog with comments for while which had this header: "My house, my rules" and he admonished posters in public (which is rarely considered appropriate) saying "nope: you're a mind-sucking troll. good bye" and the like. It was a good non-snarky conversation under his house rules.
[Edit: I should add, I've penalised here for being off topic and unhelpful, for being random, reddit-like, for being silly and abusive. I don't approve of my own behaviour all the time, the point is not to be driven away, the point is to learn how to adopt the mode which works here. If that kind of conformity to norms displeases you, then it can be hard to sustain being here, but I don't personally regard it as an onerous burden any more than being asked to be civil in public discourse is. I was also a heckler in my student days, fun times, but I wouldn't do that now]
Hm, thats all food for thought. Btw I don't think that you are being off-topic.
"here" meaning off-topic in HN, for other topics. I've been penalised for my posting behaviour across HN in the wide. I don't wish to complain, I only observe it for completeness' sake.
Most recently I was accused of being ChatGPT. I found it both amusing and chilling: If we're that close to banning people who "look like" a robot, I think we're in a bad place but that said, I would hate to think I'm responding to GPT inputs when I type responses, so I can see why people complain.
Most recently I was accused of being ChatGPT. I found it both amusing and chilling: If we're that close to banning people who "look like" a robot, I think we're in a bad place but that said, I would hate to think I'm responding to GPT inputs when I type responses, so I can see why people complain.
If I had to guess why you were accused of being ChatGPT, its probably because of your tendency to write longer form answers which tends to be the style ChatGPT uses.
This is when, on Reddit, you'd see a bottomless thread of the very first joke that comes to mind, posting an obvious GPT output. Then, reply after reply with the exact same premise. Maybe a link to a sub called UnexpectedChatGPT, which is a place that curates screenshots of entirely predictable GPT responses.
[deleted]
I'll provide a different view to the "it's the moderation" answer that I typically hear...
Honestly, I think it's mostly IQ.
I remember a time when Facebook was good, but that was back when the average user was a university student. I remember when Reddit was good, but again, that was back when the average user was probably a nerdy 18-30 year old.
I saw a similar trend with the internet more generally too... My first memories of the internet were so positive. For the most part everyone was lovely. But again, you have to consider who the average internet user was at the time (2002ish). It was mostly just nerds...
I remember everything turning to crap around 2014-2016. This was around the time your gran probably joined Facebook and YouTube began fill with content for kids. It was a trend in place for a while, but my guess is that the smart phone had something to do with the acceleration of the trend during this period. The smart phone turned the internet into more of a casual media platform than a place to do research or connect with people.
I see people point to the moderation of HN as a reason for the relative quality here, but I think it's mostly that we're just a weird community – always have been and probably always will be. Generally people here are well educated, career focused, 20-60 year olds, and we come here to talk about topics like science, technology and business.
And unlike communities on Reddit or Twitter, HN is a completely segregated community so there's no risk of contagion from adjacent low-IQ communities.
I hold this opinion, in part, because it's true in my real life too. Something that shocked me growing up, coming from a trashy working-class background is how nice upper middle-class people are. If you upset them they won't swear at you. They seem genuinely curious in the things you think. They're not cruel or judgemental to those who are different...
I feel what I'm saying here will be seen as very elitist, but it's probably the same reason you want to live in a nice neighbourhood or send your kids to a good school... Sure, having good police, teachers or moderators can help, but it won't change the people.
Honestly, I think it's mostly IQ.
I remember a time when Facebook was good, but that was back when the average user was a university student. I remember when Reddit was good, but again, that was back when the average user was probably a nerdy 18-30 year old.
I saw a similar trend with the internet more generally too... My first memories of the internet were so positive. For the most part everyone was lovely. But again, you have to consider who the average internet user was at the time (2002ish). It was mostly just nerds...
I remember everything turning to crap around 2014-2016. This was around the time your gran probably joined Facebook and YouTube began fill with content for kids. It was a trend in place for a while, but my guess is that the smart phone had something to do with the acceleration of the trend during this period. The smart phone turned the internet into more of a casual media platform than a place to do research or connect with people.
I see people point to the moderation of HN as a reason for the relative quality here, but I think it's mostly that we're just a weird community – always have been and probably always will be. Generally people here are well educated, career focused, 20-60 year olds, and we come here to talk about topics like science, technology and business.
And unlike communities on Reddit or Twitter, HN is a completely segregated community so there's no risk of contagion from adjacent low-IQ communities.
I hold this opinion, in part, because it's true in my real life too. Something that shocked me growing up, coming from a trashy working-class background is how nice upper middle-class people are. If you upset them they won't swear at you. They seem genuinely curious in the things you think. They're not cruel or judgemental to those who are different...
I feel what I'm saying here will be seen as very elitist, but it's probably the same reason you want to live in a nice neighbourhood or send your kids to a good school... Sure, having good police, teachers or moderators can help, but it won't change the people.
I've also come to a parallel realization recently, as someone who wasn't born in an English-speaking country. Not about the eternal September but about how trashy the internet is.
Whenever I go to YouTube and forget to use my VPN, I get recommended content from my country, and it's inevitably trashy and vulgar, stuff I would never engage with. Then I go to the English-speaking internet and swallow it all up like it's perfectly fine, and I've always wondered why my local social media is trashy and English-speaking social media isn't... But really there is no difference, it's all trash, trash and kids. I just couldn't recognize it because my social frame of reference for English content is the trash itself. Now that I've realized this I see it everywhere, the vulgarity, the generalized rudeness, the topics being discussed.
Anyway, yeah it comes of as elitist I suppose. Although I'm not sure it's a matter of class, because whenever I meet someone from the English axis they are most often perfectly lovely people regardless of their background, I think it's just a system optimizing for the lowest common denominator.
Whenever I go to YouTube and forget to use my VPN, I get recommended content from my country, and it's inevitably trashy and vulgar, stuff I would never engage with. Then I go to the English-speaking internet and swallow it all up like it's perfectly fine, and I've always wondered why my local social media is trashy and English-speaking social media isn't... But really there is no difference, it's all trash, trash and kids. I just couldn't recognize it because my social frame of reference for English content is the trash itself. Now that I've realized this I see it everywhere, the vulgarity, the generalized rudeness, the topics being discussed.
Anyway, yeah it comes of as elitist I suppose. Although I'm not sure it's a matter of class, because whenever I meet someone from the English axis they are most often perfectly lovely people regardless of their background, I think it's just a system optimizing for the lowest common denominator.
Elitism is not necessarily classist. It can apply to pretty much any ingroup.
The examples the GP gave were related to class, "good neighborhood", "good school", ...
> I feel what I'm saying here will be seen as very elitist, but it's probably the same reason you want to live in a nice neighbourhood or send your kids to a good school... Sure, having good police, teachers or moderators can help, but it won't change the people.
I think we're all in this Catch-22: it's an obviously elitist thing to say that various demographics drag down quality by default, but it's something that can't be denied. I believe a lot of online landscapes have changed for the worse as the nerds that used to fuel them have gone from the majority to the minority.
However, I do value some of the changes that have come about in terms of general internet UX because we're not limited to the nerds anymore. It's a hard balance to strike.
I think we're all in this Catch-22: it's an obviously elitist thing to say that various demographics drag down quality by default, but it's something that can't be denied. I believe a lot of online landscapes have changed for the worse as the nerds that used to fuel them have gone from the majority to the minority.
However, I do value some of the changes that have come about in terms of general internet UX because we're not limited to the nerds anymore. It's a hard balance to strike.
The online community must:
1. Have a clear purpose supported by strong moderation
2. Have no public-facing reputation features (eg, likes, friends, etc.)
Over time, all are doomed. Right now, HN is the best. For the most part, HN is filled with intelligent people that offer insightful comments and accept challenging positions.
However, there’s been a noticeable uptick of memes/puns/jokes that degrade the experience. Those who oppose of the jokes? Downvoted, barely visible.
This is how it starts but of course people think “oh lighten up, we’re just kidding around here!” Next thing you know, baby pictures are being posted on the front page.
Over time, all are doomed. Right now, HN is the best. For the most part, HN is filled with intelligent people that offer insightful comments and accept challenging positions.
However, there’s been a noticeable uptick of memes/puns/jokes that degrade the experience. Those who oppose of the jokes? Downvoted, barely visible.
This is how it starts but of course people think “oh lighten up, we’re just kidding around here!” Next thing you know, baby pictures are being posted on the front page.
I’ve never moderated, but participated a lot in forums and boards. First thing to know is that bad players are a lazy impulsive attention-seeking mob, so if you want them to back off, then restrict their abilities and feedback. Old users (even if sometimes misbehaving) are the core that is (1) conscious of their role and status, (2) assimilated and can decide what’s right or wrong for themselves.
For example, if a forum allows voting for everyone, it allows voting wars (+457 -371). But if it doesn’t have a score at all, there’s no feedback for a user. HN only allows downvoting after a good while, and I suspect that it amortizes upvotes after some limit. Some forums allow for weighted voting - this creates score monsters and wars between their armies. Forums that do not rank posts by f(time, score) suffer from “first” syndrome when most active neet users mark the tone for every discussion.
Moderation and self-moderation is a second important thing. Moderation should not be offensive or too strict - that simply enables a counterattack. Self-moderation allows to leave bad posts without attention. A moderator should advise good users to avoid bad discussions every time they appear and leave them as is unless the post is really destructive. Silent moderation isn’t future-proof because the message becomes hidden. But silent deranking works, because it’s unclear to abusers if their content was moderated or was simply not interesting.
Reddit is a classic “anyone up-down score” forum, it never ought to be successful in this regard, considering the scale. Boards provide no feedback at all except for illegal content.
For example, if a forum allows voting for everyone, it allows voting wars (+457 -371). But if it doesn’t have a score at all, there’s no feedback for a user. HN only allows downvoting after a good while, and I suspect that it amortizes upvotes after some limit. Some forums allow for weighted voting - this creates score monsters and wars between their armies. Forums that do not rank posts by f(time, score) suffer from “first” syndrome when most active neet users mark the tone for every discussion.
Moderation and self-moderation is a second important thing. Moderation should not be offensive or too strict - that simply enables a counterattack. Self-moderation allows to leave bad posts without attention. A moderator should advise good users to avoid bad discussions every time they appear and leave them as is unless the post is really destructive. Silent moderation isn’t future-proof because the message becomes hidden. But silent deranking works, because it’s unclear to abusers if their content was moderated or was simply not interesting.
Reddit is a classic “anyone up-down score” forum, it never ought to be successful in this regard, considering the scale. Boards provide no feedback at all except for illegal content.
"Most active neet users"
If that's a typo... no, it isn't.
If that's a typo... no, it isn't.
Aggressively moderate the tone, but not the content. Let people speak their mind, as long as they do it politely.
This is something that HN does brilliantly.
This is something that HN does brilliantly.
HN definitely step above reddit.
reddit mess of angry people and rage bait articles. every other post on /r/popular is hate towards non-progressive/us conservative or something about lgbt/trans or black americans.
agree people marginalized and society should fix. but they view only they exact position is acceptable and nothing else to be tolerated. No nuance discussion. honestly every other post someone complaining about something.
reddit like dirty water pond on internet.
personally think HN overall good productive discussion on many topic. do not see it shifting into reddit.
reddit mess of angry people and rage bait articles. every other post on /r/popular is hate towards non-progressive/us conservative or something about lgbt/trans or black americans.
agree people marginalized and society should fix. but they view only they exact position is acceptable and nothing else to be tolerated. No nuance discussion. honestly every other post someone complaining about something.
reddit like dirty water pond on internet.
personally think HN overall good productive discussion on many topic. do not see it shifting into reddit.
I think that's mostly down to topic selection and harsher moderating. Threads on slightly controversial topics also gets sidetracked here. Look at anything related to Musk and people will come quite close to breaking the rules when hating on him.
I actually think reddit is pretty good. Just need to pick the right ones.
Nowadays I'm not sure I agree. the site is so angry in general and insults are not only common but seemingly encouraged as communtites are warring with each other. Small, niche communities can work but they fall into the same issue as the rest of forums: inactivity. on a sub with less than 10k subs you end up with barely a post a day. That sweet spot around 30-50k doesn't last too long either without either fizzling out or blowing up.
Like I had a simple reply asking someone what they think and their immediate reaction was "I'm not having this conversation with you". And then any response trying to defuse the situation that had no fuse to begin with just turned around to gaslight me with "see now we're arguing about nothing".
I can't ever imagine that happening on HackerNews. They'd at worst simply choose not to answer instead of feeling a need to get the last word in and profess how indignant it was for me to be inquiring about a user's post on a public forum. That just gets draining.
Like I had a simple reply asking someone what they think and their immediate reaction was "I'm not having this conversation with you". And then any response trying to defuse the situation that had no fuse to begin with just turned around to gaslight me with "see now we're arguing about nothing".
I can't ever imagine that happening on HackerNews. They'd at worst simply choose not to answer instead of feeling a need to get the last word in and profess how indignant it was for me to be inquiring about a user's post on a public forum. That just gets draining.
It can be, but the problem is that the good subreddits are only take one click for someone to join them, and thus they are not isolated at all from the broader community of Reddit and the broader community of Reddit being what it is that sub reddit inevitably degrades. But yes, some subreddits are nice.
Reddit is an interesting example. There are some excellent subreddits and subsubreddits (by which I mean subs, which you then filter to regular good OPs). A subreddit can be effectively moderated, or be on a topic that attracts the good kind of conversation (and has the HN-like downvoting of bad comments). I have never modded but I suspect brutal moderation and quick banning of bad users on a 1 strike basis is needed.
I’m pretty happy with Reddit. The voting system keeps the best posts at the top. The mods are a bit overzealous sometimes, one click and you can create your own Subreddit.
Some of the more popular Subreddits say upfront, “This is a very heavy moderated subreddit.”
It’s not perfect, but workable.
It’s not perfect, but workable.
If you like hacker news but are concerned you are reading dang's personal filter bubble try /active
Great question, I've been thinking about this myself. Does anyone know the state of the research on this or can point to some sources?
I found one good article once but lost the link. The only thing that i remember is that having graduated levels of participation like HN or SO was positive.
I found one good article once but lost the link. The only thing that i remember is that having graduated levels of participation like HN or SO was positive.
It's a growth issue. Essentially Reddit and other growth-focused sites aim for the lowest common denominator of user.
Depends on subreddit.
Birds of feather flock together.
True, but then this happens: https://theconversation.com/why-do-flocks-of-birds-swoop-and...
There is no solution for the problem you are trying to solve.
The issue is structural and is consistent with any other one to many structured communications system.
All implementations that have this structural deficit will get bad actors creating multiple accounts to amplify and de-amplify narratives and sow disinformation or irregular warfare activities/narratives/active measures.
Reddit's subreddits that offer technical support and other similar help from volunteers are a perfect case study of how volunteerism fails. Primarily because bots seek to constantly discredit, dispute, and target those that provide value (as a resource drain).
In the past you could ask questions in places like /r/linuxquestions and get a decent answer, in recent years most of the experts have left because 70% or more of the responses aside from the occasional person asking the question were from third-parties who sought to muddy the water, discredit and dispute what was being provided, the value of which was often based on professionally tested methodology from the trenches.
Volunteer psychology says you stop doing it when it starts costing you. This is relevant on all current platforms.
The issue is structural and is consistent with any other one to many structured communications system.
All implementations that have this structural deficit will get bad actors creating multiple accounts to amplify and de-amplify narratives and sow disinformation or irregular warfare activities/narratives/active measures.
Reddit's subreddits that offer technical support and other similar help from volunteers are a perfect case study of how volunteerism fails. Primarily because bots seek to constantly discredit, dispute, and target those that provide value (as a resource drain).
In the past you could ask questions in places like /r/linuxquestions and get a decent answer, in recent years most of the experts have left because 70% or more of the responses aside from the occasional person asking the question were from third-parties who sought to muddy the water, discredit and dispute what was being provided, the value of which was often based on professionally tested methodology from the trenches.
Volunteer psychology says you stop doing it when it starts costing you. This is relevant on all current platforms.
[deleted]
It's sad to say but HN won't last forever either.
When in doubt go higher brow.
I'd say the main thing to keep in mind is the topic. Put simply, the more niche/specialised the topic, the higher the quality of discussion will usually be.
And this is because those niche topics tend to draw in people who want to be there, and who want to discuss the topic at a reasonably civil level. So instead of being a megaphone for every crank with a Twitter or Facebook account to rant about flat Earth style conspiracy theories, they tend to be for folks who want to actually come to an agreement about things and discuss the intricacies of the topic.
It's why Hacker News topics on highly technical issues tend to have much better standards of discussion than those on political ones.
Of course, some topics are just gonna be hell regardless; any site or community dedicated to discussing politics, religion, conspiracy theories or other such hot topic subjects is going to devolve to Reddit like standards in a matter of days, if not hours. If your topic is something that's central to everyone's life and which large groups disagree on to the point of thinking their opponents are 'evil', then it's probably not going to be practical to hold a reasoned debate online.
You'll also want to think about incentives in the design of the system. Twitter for example is basically designed for quips and pile ons due to the character limit, quote tweets, various communities who hate each other being forced to interact, etc. Meanwhile something like Reddit can become an echo chamber due to the voting system, since anyone the majority disagrees with will be downvoted into oblivion and driven away.
So it may be worth looking at other setups here. Make voting more granular and based on aspects of the content (like whether it's informative, funny, creative, etc) rather than just 'is this good' or 'is this bad'.
Finally, moderation is hugely important here, and most sites get it horribly wrong. Have people with experience in the topic and decent people skills do the moderation rather than outsourced contractors, be consistent with how you enforce the rules to avoid favouritism and other clique related issues, and (potentially) be willing to actually hire your staff to do this full time if need be. Also be willing to come on and make changes here if things aren't working out, and you feel the team isn't doing a good job.
As for your questions at the end:
1. Yes it's possible for an online community to keep itself in that sweet spot, so long as it's fairly niche and isn't dedicated to sensitive or controversial subject areas.
2. Hacker News is somewhere in the middle, though getting closer to Reddit as time goes on. Dang does a really good job here when it comes to moderation, but the increase in politically charged topics is certainly bringing in some less than intelligent discussion, especially for more mainstream areas.
And this is because those niche topics tend to draw in people who want to be there, and who want to discuss the topic at a reasonably civil level. So instead of being a megaphone for every crank with a Twitter or Facebook account to rant about flat Earth style conspiracy theories, they tend to be for folks who want to actually come to an agreement about things and discuss the intricacies of the topic.
It's why Hacker News topics on highly technical issues tend to have much better standards of discussion than those on political ones.
Of course, some topics are just gonna be hell regardless; any site or community dedicated to discussing politics, religion, conspiracy theories or other such hot topic subjects is going to devolve to Reddit like standards in a matter of days, if not hours. If your topic is something that's central to everyone's life and which large groups disagree on to the point of thinking their opponents are 'evil', then it's probably not going to be practical to hold a reasoned debate online.
You'll also want to think about incentives in the design of the system. Twitter for example is basically designed for quips and pile ons due to the character limit, quote tweets, various communities who hate each other being forced to interact, etc. Meanwhile something like Reddit can become an echo chamber due to the voting system, since anyone the majority disagrees with will be downvoted into oblivion and driven away.
So it may be worth looking at other setups here. Make voting more granular and based on aspects of the content (like whether it's informative, funny, creative, etc) rather than just 'is this good' or 'is this bad'.
Finally, moderation is hugely important here, and most sites get it horribly wrong. Have people with experience in the topic and decent people skills do the moderation rather than outsourced contractors, be consistent with how you enforce the rules to avoid favouritism and other clique related issues, and (potentially) be willing to actually hire your staff to do this full time if need be. Also be willing to come on and make changes here if things aren't working out, and you feel the team isn't doing a good job.
As for your questions at the end:
1. Yes it's possible for an online community to keep itself in that sweet spot, so long as it's fairly niche and isn't dedicated to sensitive or controversial subject areas.
2. Hacker News is somewhere in the middle, though getting closer to Reddit as time goes on. Dang does a really good job here when it comes to moderation, but the increase in politically charged topics is certainly bringing in some less than intelligent discussion, especially for more mainstream areas.