Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#141

Post by dang »

douche wrote: post #104
Natsu wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the algorithm is open, so there's no guesswork: http://www.righto.com/2009/06/how-does-newsyc-ranking-work.h... HN has normally been transparent whenever they modify something manually.

I've been noticing a pattern lately where anything that touches on a few different hot-button issues gets blasted away with flags the second it creeps onto the front page. I don't think its the mods having anything to do with it, but it feels a little broken.

It's usually that users flag these stories, presumably because of HN's (really the public internet's) inability to discuss them civilly and substantively.

It's a tough problem. Those stories often relate to important issues which hold intellectual interest, if not necessarily gratifying intellectual curiosity (the mandate of this site). In that sense they're not all off-topic. But it damages this site and community for it to host ideological flamewars, much as it damages a neighborhood to host rubbish fires.

My reading of the user flags is that they're partly trying to protect the neighborhood, and there's value in that.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#143

Post by dang »

Natsu wrote: post #71
gkoberger wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The takeaway I got from the NSA revelations was that it's now completely reasonable to assume that Google/FB/Twitter/etc are working directly with the government or politicians. Twitter removed #DNCLeaks right while it was the top trending topic today. Reddit paid staff has been suspending people who talk about Correct The Record or the DNC leaks. Facebook admitted to filtering certain topics due to political…

And on HN, the stories about it that were on the front page vanished pretty quickly. Of course, I think that might be due to political-story related 'gravity' at work. I didn't see dang or anyone else comment, though, and they normally do if they've done any sort of moderation.

It's nice to see an HN user commenting about moderation transparency (also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12148846), but I feel obliged to let you know that the way it works is more complicated than this. We don't post comments about every sort of moderation—it would lead to too many comments and many more meta-style arguments, which would make HN worse.

If you want more information you're welcome to ask us at hn@ycombinator.com.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#144

Post by headShrinker »

ihsw wrote: post #108
Natsu wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And on HN, the stories about it that were on the front page vanished pretty quickly. Of course, I think that might be due to political-story related 'gravity' at work. I didn't see dang or anyone else comment, though, and they normally do if they've done any sort of moderation.

HN mods will remove anything that isn't tangentially related to tech. In this case, since it's Google, it can stay.

From what I see on a daily basis, mods do a really good job of curating articles focused on so many different topics with an even slight tie-in to the tech industry. This is one of the more interesting link aggragate sites or even original content sites. As a vehement bernier I'm thankful that HN didn't turn in a Bernie or Clinton voice box. During some really heated but frivolous political debates, HN was my sanctuary.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#145

Post by MichaelGG »

colordrops wrote: post #137
MichaelGG wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK well in that case every person/company in the country "works with" the USG since they comply with some laws/demands.

Google initially denied that they complied with the usage of PRISM, until documentation showed they were lying. Apple held out longer than Google, so at some point they all had to decide that they were going to "work" with the USG.

Please give me an exact citation. Perhaps update Wikipedia while you're at it?

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#146

Post by colordrops »

MichaelGG wrote: post #145
colordrops wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google initially denied that they complied with the usage of PRISM, until documentation showed they were lying. Apple held out longer than Google, so at some point they all had to decide that they were going to "work" with the USG.

Please give me an exact citation. Perhaps update Wikipedia while you're at it?

I've never edited wikipedia, but my understanding is that it is labor intensive. I'll just provide a citation here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants...

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#148

Post by jonknee »

yuhong wrote: post #147
jonknee wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically?

Copyright term extensions for one.

How does that harm Google? It brings the other countries in line with what the US already has (at least for works created after Jan 1, 1978). But, I really don't see how having copyrights extended 20 years in a handful of countries harms Google.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#149

Post by yuhong »

jonknee wrote: post #148
yuhong wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright term extensions for one.

How does that harm Google? It brings the other countries in line with what the US already has (at least for works created after Jan 1, 1978). But, I really don't see how having copyrights extended 20 years in a handful of countries harms Google.

It puts the longer terms in a treaty, which is more difficult to modify.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#150

Post by Natsu »

dang wrote: post #141
douche wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been noticing a pattern lately where anything that touches on a few different hot-button issues gets blasted away with flags the second it creeps onto the front page. I don't think its the mods having anything to do with it, but it feels a little broken.

It's usually that users flag these stories, presumably because of HN's (really the public internet's) inability to discuss them civilly and substantively. It's a tough problem. Those stories often relate to important issues which hold intellectual interest, if not necessarily gratifying intellectual curiosity (the mandate of this site). In that sense they're not all off-topic. But it damages this site and community f…

It's a difficult balance to be sure, and I have to say that I respect your work in keeping HN a pleasant place to be. I mean, there's stuff like this which is pretty important: http://imgur.com/gallery/ebUd5

But... if you look at that, you can see 'flamewar' written all over it, even though it's getting very little coverage. So I wouldn't submit it to HN as a story, even though probably quite a few people here care about it.

Post reply on HN