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

NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 463 posts

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#431

Post by nkurz »

nkurz wrote: post #410
james-watson wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had previous accounts banned for stating the following: "Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species of primates, in which the Y chromosome results in differential physiological development between males and females." So yes, HN is quite a hivemind when it comes to gender/identity politics. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment.

Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left out some essential detail. My guess would be that you made that statement, and subsequently you were banned for something else. Perhaps you could post a link to the thread in question? Never mind, maybe I found it, or at least the account: https://news.ycombina…

[Responding to myself since I can't respond to the the flagged and dead original. You can click on your username and turn on "Show Dead" to view it.]

I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators

Likely, but enforcement is always going to be "spotty", so it's almost impossible to distinguish bias from bad luck in any particular case. And perhaps they are "darlings" because they interact politely with the moderators?

For history's sake, let's link the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed.

I don't know if it is intentional, but I think you are conflating different issues. Dan marked the thread off topic and explained why. Subsequently, another comment in the thread was killed by user flags. It is unlikely that Dan killed it himself.

There was zero rule breaking in that one, just thoughtcrimes

Arguably, although the counter-argument that Dan presents is that "attractive nuisances" are against the rules. He explains his reasoning (which I agree with) in a more recent response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12163939. The goal of moderation is not ensuring technical compliance with arbitrary rules, rather then goal is "protecting civil, substantive discussion".

Like the common (and often truncated) quote that "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms", the standard against which HN should be judged is not whether the moderation is perfect, but how it compares to the alternatives. Based on the current state of HN relative to other internet discussion sites, I'd claim that the moderation seems to be working pretty well. Where do you think is doing a better job?

Separately, are "clevernickname" and "FD3SA" both your accounts? The transition it the thread from one account to the other seems odd to explain otherwise. If so, the "zero rule breaking in that one" seems like an odd claim, akin to the "Freemen on the Land" claims of immunity from the the courts based on being "Incorrectly Identified". See page 75 here: https://thelastbastille.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/meads-v-...

If HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress, why do they ruthlessly suppress established scientific consensus?

I know this must feel like a well framed question, but it's really not. Why should we assume "HN is about entrepreneurship and technological progress" any more than assuming "the moon is made of blue cheese"? Who exactly is the "they" that is suppressing scientific consensus, and if this was the goal why choose such a round-about way to do so? For that matter, what does "consensus" have to do with science?

And here's my hypothesis: because it does not fit the current political zeitgeist.

A scientific hypothesis should make a falsifiable prediction. Is this the sense in which you are using the term? If so, what predictions does your hypothesis make that are different from a plausible "null hypothesis" like "the moderators are trying their best to keep HN as a place where substantive discussion is possible"? How would we go about testing these predictions?

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#432

Post by jessaustin »

gruyere wrote: post #430
intended wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for the next community you need to figure out where it is in order to be self selected for membership.

I've had several people try to discern the meaning of your comment, but none of us could figure it out. You have words here that together sound like a sentence, but don't make any actual sense.

The implication is that if one were truly too good for HN, then one would already know about "the next HN": that exclusive comment site at which sober mature discussion among intelligent sophisticated people takes place much as it used to long ago on HN. Which is funny not least because the level of discussion here even today seems vastly superior to what one finds elsewhere online. Part of that quality, may be a willingness to welcome those for whom English is a second language.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#433

Post by james-watson »

dang wrote: post #429
james-watson wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had previous accounts banned for stating the following: "Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species of primates, in which the Y chromosome results in differential physiological development between males and females." So yes, HN is quite a hivemind when it comes to gender/identity politics. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment.

Users who make self-flattering claims about why they were banned from HN—always for some allegedly tinpot reason—are unreliable narrators. The real reason is invariably more sordid, which is why they omit to supply links. The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. They often do so shortly after proclaiming that they're leaving HN forever and will ne…

I returned because I have hope dang, that HN will one day see the light of science and break the shackles of political correctness. I enjoyed the ideas espoused by Paul Graham, who is no longer among us and whose legacy is defiled by the current HN [1].

I won't say any more, as I can see that you are readying the ban hammer with righteous fervor.

I will let Dr. Helena Cronin, a scientist, make the point I was banned for:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-huma...

1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#434

Post by james-watson »

nkurz wrote: post #431
nkurz wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left out some essential detail. My guess would be that you made that statement, and subsequently you were banned for something else. Perhaps you could post a link to the thread in question? Never mind, maybe I found it, or at least the account: https://news.ycombina…

[Responding to myself since I can't respond to the the flagged and dead original. You can click on your username and turn on "Show Dead" to view it.] I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators Likely, but enforcement is always going to be "spotty", so it's almost impossible to distinguish bias from bad luck in any particular case. And perhaps th…

There's a lot of disparate claims you are making here without a central argument.

No, I did not use sockpuppet accounts. Unlike fulltime moderators, I have things to do other than spend every hour of the day on HN to score political points. I only had one previous account, and it was banned as a result of that thread.

As to your other questions, you are losing the forest for the trees. What I am saying is this:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-huma...

You are free to make of it what you will. Obviously, neither I, or Dr. Cronin, or the Holy Ghost himself can convince you of a fact that you do not wish to be convinced of; the choice is yours.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#435

Post by dang »

james-watson wrote: post #433
dang wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users who make self-flattering claims about why they were banned from HN—always for some allegedly tinpot reason—are unreliable narrators. The real reason is invariably more sordid, which is why they omit to supply links. The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. They often do so shortly after proclaiming that they're leaving HN forever and will ne…

I returned because I have hope dang, that HN will one day see the light of science and break the shackles of political correctness. I enjoyed the ideas espoused by Paul Graham, who is no longer among us and whose legacy is defiled by the current HN [1]. I won't say any more, as I can see that you are readying the ban hammer with righteous fervor. I will let Dr. Helena Cronin, a scientist, make the point I was banned…

PG was far more aggressive about banning people than we are; partly because he had less time, and partly less patience. After years of trying to be more patient, I'm unconvinced that patience in this area is a virtue. It seems to lead to more trouble and no fewer complaints. When efforts to do things a certain way lead to condemnation for the opposite, it seems like a sign that something's not working.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#436

Post by nkurz »

dang wrote: post #429
james-watson wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had previous accounts banned for stating the following: "Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species of primates, in which the Y chromosome results in differential physiological development between males and females." So yes, HN is quite a hivemind when it comes to gender/identity politics. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment.

Users who make self-flattering claims about why they were banned from HN—always for some allegedly tinpot reason—are unreliable narrators. The real reason is invariably more sordid, which is why they omit to supply links. The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. They often do so shortly after proclaiming that they're leaving HN forever and will ne…

The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts.

I'm hoping that you base your moderating decisions on the actions of the user in question ("human behind the keyboard" user regardless of account name) and not the "typical such user"? Do you have evidence that you are chosing not to release that 'james-watson' is such a user?

Most HN readers would be surprised to learn how small the number of users generating all this drama really is.

Perhaps there would be some way to publicly enlighten us about the serial offenders? For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089.

In and of itself, it doesn't appear to be too egregious, and thus it would appear to bolster the poster's argument. But presumably there is more to the story?

this crappy, horribly run echo chamber again

The most interesting thing to me is that there are often multiple conflicting "echo chamber" claims in flight, with each side feeling like the lone outcast. There's an excellent example even in this subthread right here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12308842 (I'm referring to the back-and-forth in the thread, rather than the individual comment I linked).

To some, HN is a hotbed of socialism, and to others the epitome of evil capitalism. My recent conclusion is that (counterintuitively) HN is frequently accused of being an "echo chamber" because it has greater diversity of opinion than most other spaces online. The truly anechoic chambers aren't called out as such because the filtering is so effective, whereas "leaky" spaces like HN are assigned the label.

[Edit: I just noticed that "anechoic" doesn't quite fit the narrative here, but don't know how to reword it. The point was supposed to be that full echo chambers and anechoic chambers may have more in common with each other than each does with the points in the middle.]

Perversely, this might mean that accusations of being an echo chamber is a good metric for diversity of opinion. If the norm is that one lives in a world where one normally hears no fundamental disagreement, it can be disconcerting to be in a place where there is no clear "right way of thinking". Only when people stop proclaiming it to be an echo chamber is the canary dead.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#437

Post by jsmthrowaway »

yodsanklai wrote: post #379
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-dissent phenomenon is amplified by the greying of comments, which continues to be a bad idea all these years later. The literal message and incentive there is: leave a comment that gets upvotes or it will get progressively harder to read until nobody can actually read it. So now you have to care about what you say, because it will be completely removed from the site by natural voting if you don't toe a certa…

> So now you have to care about what you say Exactly, you have to care about what you say, and that's exactly why I love HN comments so much. Also, you make it sounds like there are such great comments that disappear because of the downvotes, but it's not the case. The only disappearing comments are stupid jokes or trolls. I don't remember any well-argued position that I was unable to read because of the downvote.

> The only disappearing comments are stupid jokes or trolls.

This is not only completely false, it's rapidly provable as completely false. You are, quite literally, lying to yourself. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, discussion on controversial issues is Exhibit A.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#438

Post by nkurz »

james-watson wrote: post #434
nkurz wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Responding to myself since I can't respond to the the flagged and dead original. You can click on your username and turn on "Show Dead" to view it.] I have witnessed HN darlings get away with far, far worse ad-hominem vulgarity with nary a peep from the moderators Likely, but enforcement is always going to be "spotty", so it's almost impossible to distinguish bias from bad luck in any particular case. And perhaps th…

There's a lot of disparate claims you are making here without a central argument. No, I did not use sockpuppet accounts. Unlike fulltime moderators, I have things to do other than spend every hour of the day on HN to score political points. I only had one previous account, and it was banned as a result of that thread. As to your other questions, you are losing the forest for the trees. What I am saying is this: https…

I only had one previous account, and it was banned as a result of that thread.

I appreciate the clear statement. My guess based on Dan's comments is that he thinks you are associated with other undisclosed accounts, and that this might explain some of the confusion as to what is acceptable discourse.

As to your other questions, you are losing the forest for the trees.

Possibly. Also possible that we are in different forests, or that I care more about trees than forests.

What I am saying is this: https://www.edge.org/conversation/helena_cronin-getting-huma...

Thanks, I will read and consider. At a glance, I think it reflects my beliefs as well. I read the "Ant and the Peacock" long ago, but don't recall the specifics of her argument.

My favorite book in this area, which I think is compatible with Cronin, is Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's "Mother Nature": https://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-Maternal-Instincts-Spec.... If you haven't read it, I'm guessing you'd love it.

Hrdy also wins my personal award for "Best Evolutionary Development Theorist That's Been Almost Completely Ignored". Happily that seems to be changing a bit recently, with her work finally starting to get respect: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/raising-...

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#439

Post by mintplant »

nkurz wrote: post #436
dang wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users who make self-flattering claims about why they were banned from HN—always for some allegedly tinpot reason—are unreliable narrators. The real reason is invariably more sordid, which is why they omit to supply links. The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. They often do so shortly after proclaiming that they're leaving HN forever and will ne…

The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. I'm hoping that you base your moderating decisions on the actions of the user in question ("human behind the keyboard" user regardless of account name) and not the "typical such user"? Do you have evidence that you are chosing not to release that 'james-watson' is such a user? Most HN readers would be surpr…

> For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089.

I can explain it. It says right there that it was [flagged]. Enough people hit the "flag" link to automatically kill it.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#440

Post by nkurz »

mintplant wrote: post #439
nkurz wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The typical such user has a long history of breaking the rules here, getting banned, and creating new accounts. I'm hoping that you base your moderating decisions on the actions of the user in question ("human behind the keyboard" user regardless of account name) and not the "typical such user"? Do you have evidence that you are chosing not to release that 'james-watson' is such a user? Most HN readers would be surpr…

> For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089 . I can explain it. It says right there that it was [flagged]. Enough people hit the "flag" link to automatically kill it.

That's the usual answer, but I think there may be more happening here than that. One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. This made me wonder if there was a separate mechanism in play here. Out of self-interest, it also made me wonder if maybe my "vouching" privileges have been removed.

Separately, although multiple flags can kill a comment, it's still subject to moderator review. Since Dan commented in this thread, this probably implies that he consciously decided to let the user flagging stand rather than reverse it. My phrasing may have been poor, but I wondered why this was.

I've argued elsewhere in this thread that it would be interesting for both flags and downvotes to be public. I don't expect Dan to release this information here, but I'd personally be very interested to know who those user's were in this case, and on what basis they were flagging it.

Separately, your tone seems particularly condescending. Is this by design? Why?

Post reply on HN