can you then objectively define what's admirable? it seems like a subjectively slippery slope - your admirable might be different than my admirable. admirable is also very context-dependent: on HN, admirable is commonly agreed to adhere to the site guidelines & reflected in earned karma and so here, "hot" != admirable because that's not HN's scope. on a site like the OP though, the common agreement is that the site is used to distill that which the community determines to be 'hot'. if 'hot' means nothing to you, then you probably can't contribute to that community's body of knowledge and as such, you may want to avoid such places. here, though, you can contribute admirable feedback on how a site like this, regardless of the body of knowledge, is implemented/executed/marketed.

if you want to rant about aesthetic injustice and the ills of an over judgmental society, write a blog post about it and submit the link. if there's an interesting conversation to be had on that topic here, this community is relatively good at recognizing those opportunities and you'll get your forum for elucidation.

Give me a fucking break.

What's admirable is intelligent people making the world a better place.

Sad to see that modernist/postmodernist bullshit like this is taking over HN.

Being hot is, however, a valid criterion for judging 'hot tweeters', which is what the site appears to be attempting.

It would be a 'misjustice' if they were being called the best/most amusing/interesting/insightful users, but were still only ranked on their pictures.

As it stands, it's shallow but no great injustice.