Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#1

Post by mactavish88 » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 1:50 PM UTC

I submitted a link today that got flagged pretty quickly. My original intention was to make people aware of the fact that it seems as though a large number of scientists have signed a declaration claiming that “there is no climate emergency”.

I make no claim as to the accuracy of their declaration, and neither support nor deny their claim. I’m not a climate scientist.

It seems like a really bad idea though to immediately suppress this kind of information as opposed to being able to have a conversation about it.

In general, if any contrarian opinions arise and are immediately flagged and suppressed, does that not just turn HN into an echo chamber? Is there not a better model than flag/suppress?

EDIT: My concern with this particular question and submission is not about the content of the articles themselves. (Beyond the fact that they're being linked all over Twitter atm and, if this is a misinformation campaign, then it seems to be gaining traction now in 2022 again)

This particular question is UX-oriented and has to do with:

1. I'm concerned about how HN shapes my perspective if the flagging process could suppress meaningful conversation. (Yes, I consume a variety of other sources of information too, and I'm also concerned about how they shape my perspective) In essence, a select few users with enough karma watching for incoming content could shape the entire discourse on HN. Who are these users, and why should I trust their paradigms in shaping mine?

2. The UX involved in flagging on HN seems like it could be improved if there was a reason attached to it. Or some other automated mechanism to immediately notify the submitter as to prior conversation on the topic that isn't available via searching for the topic on HN first.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#2

Post by theCrowing » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 1:51 PM UTC

People can vouch for your submission, nobody did.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#3

Post by mactavish88 » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 1:54 PM UTC

theCrowing wrote: post #2

People can vouch for your submission, nobody did.

How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#4

Post by theCrowing » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 1:57 PM UTC

mactavish88 wrote: post #3

theCrowing wrote: post #2

People can vouch for your submission, nobody did.

How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?

The headline of the site and your submission is also just plain wrong. Maybe there is no manmade climate emergency but there is most certainly a climate emergency. Also there is nothing scientific on the site only an open letter... it's just really bad content. You don't know how many people have seen or voted on it you are just believing that nobody has seen it. Multiple users need to flag your post before it becomes [flagged] and even more need to flag it for it to become [dead].

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#5

Post by amurf » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 2:01 PM UTC

theCrowing wrote: post #4

mactavish88 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?

The headline of the site and your submission is also just plain wrong. Maybe there is no manmade climate emergency but there is most certainly a climate emergency. Also there is nothing scientific on the site only an open letter... it's just really bad content. You don't know how many people have seen or voted on it you are just believing that nobody has seen it. Multiple users need to flag your post before it become…

Only if there was a link so the rest of us knew what is being talked about.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#6

Post by theCrowing » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 2:02 PM UTC

amurf wrote: post #5

theCrowing wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headline of the site and your submission is also just plain wrong. Maybe there is no manmade climate emergency but there is most certainly a climate emergency. Also there is nothing scientific on the site only an open letter... it's just really bad content. You don't know how many people have seen or voted on it you are just believing that nobody has seen it. Multiple users need to flag your post before it become…

Only if there was a link so the rest of us knew what is being talked about.

Go into your profile and activate "showdead" after that click his profile and you will see his [dead] and [flagged] submissions.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#7

Post by _Microft » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 2:04 PM UTC

mactavish88 wrote: post #3

theCrowing wrote: post #2

People can vouch for your submission, nobody did.

How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?

Anyone who chose to enable the option "Show dead" (comments/submissions) in the settings can still see the title and vouch for it if they like.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#8

Post by defrost » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 2:07 PM UTC

You submitted two links, both to an industry group headed up by Guus Berkhout:

[quote]

  Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL).

  Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made into law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change sceptics groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies.

  Berkhout claimed the ideal of the organization was to provide an alternative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  In late September 2019 the group produced an open letter which presented a European Climate Declaration, stating that there was no climate emergency and repeating a number of claims that were inconsistent with the scientific evidence on climate.

  A fact check performed by climate scientists for Climate Feedback gave the letter an overall scientific credibility of "very low", and tagged it as "Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading".

  The analysis also added that, out of the roughly 500 signatories, only 10 self-identified as climate scientists. 

  The document was later rebranded as the World Climate Declaration.

[/quote]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Climate Science (as laid out by the IPCC) is akin to Foucoult's Pendulum; the earth rotates, and human activity is altering the atmosphere in a measurable manner that traps more heat energy than is normally retained.

You may have a contrarian opinion about measurable facts .. but there are bars and cafes for those.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#9

Post by mactavish88 » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

theCrowing wrote: post #4

mactavish88 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?

The headline of the site and your submission is also just plain wrong. Maybe there is no manmade climate emergency but there is most certainly a climate emergency. Also there is nothing scientific on the site only an open letter... it's just really bad content. You don't know how many people have seen or voted on it you are just believing that nobody has seen it. Multiple users need to flag your post before it become…

I think this is the key problem. It seems you assume I have a particular position on climate change, as opposed to my actual intention of making people aware of this declaration. Those are very different positions.

Also, my second submission was a link to a specific page on the site where I copied/pasted the title verbatim, and it was flagged immediately.

This leads me to believe that my post wasn’t flagged because of an inaccurate title, but because someone really didn’t want (and didn’t want others) to see the post.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#10

Post by mactavish88 » Mon, Dec 26, 2022, 2:11 PM UTC

_Microft wrote: post #7

mactavish88 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?

Anyone who chose to enable the option "Show dead" (comments/submissions) in the settings can still see the title and vouch for it if they like.

This is not the default mode of browsing facilitated by HN, so the system inherently lends itself to killing contrarian perspectives long before there can be any meaningful discussion about them.

To me, there’s nothing more powerful than someone posting a contrarian perspective and there being a highly upvoted, well-reasoned/cited response as to why the contrarian perspective isn’t valid. This I would prefer over having those contrarian perspectives suppressed, and I never get to see or engage with them.