Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

Article doesn’t mention what I believe is one mod tool: shadow banning accounts based on IP. I had a bunch of accounts get shadowbanned for no evident reason and after a while I deduced it was based on using the account from a particular cafe’s WiFi. I just created this account and if I go use it from that place I will be banned again by some automated process.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#5

Post by minimaxir » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:14 PM UTC

Another HN tool moderators use that isn't mentioned in the post is the second-chance pool, where moderators will rescue a post which did not receive many upvotes and give it placement on the front page for a bit of time.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#6

Post by dogruck » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:14 PM UTC

epx wrote: post #3

I used to worry about downvotes, now I find solace in having annoyed the downvoters.

I agree that if you never get down votes, then you're not adding maximum value.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#7

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:14 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#8

Post by willvarfar » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:15 PM UTC

oftenbanned wrote: post #4

Article doesn’t mention what I believe is one mod tool: shadow banning accounts based on IP. I had a bunch of accounts get shadowbanned for no evident reason and after a while I deduced it was based on using the account from a particular cafe’s WiFi. I just created this account and if I go use it from that place I will be banned again by some automated process.

Why did you have so many accounts in the first place? How many is "a bunch"?

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#9

Post by vormalpg » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:15 PM UTC

Moderators should in no way be able to bury posts or even nudge them downwards. This is a cowardly way to try to control discussion. If it isn't explicitly against the site rules, let the readers decide.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#10

Post by eterm » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

vormalpg wrote: post #9

Moderators should in no way be able to bury posts or even nudge them downwards. This is a cowardly way to try to control discussion. If it isn't explicitly against the site rules, let the readers decide.

I've long come to accept that HN is a curated source, the voting is a kind of false-democracy to make it appear more democratic than it is.

Yes, likely >90% of the site is done through voting, but a significant amount of pruning and bumping clearly also occurs.