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

Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 409 posts

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#151

Post by aaron-lebo »

andrewguenther wrote: post #134
flavio81 wrote: post #78

In this thread, some people are complaining of moderators downvoting (lowering the rank) of some submissions over others; and at least one person says "let the readers decide". I think that if I wanted a forum/news site where "the readers decide" and ONLY the readers decide, i'd go to Reddit. No thanks, i prefer HN due to the behind-the-scenes 'curation' or choice of content, which so far usually gives very interesti…

I've found moderation on HN to be a bit heavy handed recently. Specifically when it comes to the issue of sexism in SV. No matter the opinion, posts on this seem to get removed shortly after reaching the front page. Question for the mods: Why? It doesn't appear to be a bias towards either side. Is the perception just that people are tied of hearing about it? Why not let the users decide that?

I flag almost every single one of those stories, because they stopped covering new ground after about the first day or two. I can't be the only one, maybe the users are deciding?

Outside of flagging, behavior within the post itself (lots of comments?) probably penalize them. Really, really good stuff makes the frontpage, though. The issues at Uber, for example, were widely discussed.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#152

Post by bogomipz »

interfixus wrote: post #98

The harsh and angry negativity of some comments in this thread is difficult to understand. As others have pointed out, and as should go without saying, this is a private site with whichever ruleset its owners choose to impose, take it or leave it. And besides, the mods are making a tremendous job of it. I wildly disagree with lots of their decisions, and probably with great part of their general outlook on life, but…

>"The harsh and angry negativity of some comments in this thread is difficult to understand. As others have pointed out, and as should go without saying, this is a private site with whichever ruleset its owners choose to impose, take it or leave it."

I find this comment difficult to understand. The success and value of a site like HN largely depends on a community who submits stories and engages in discussion about those stories.

Stating "This is a private site" and "take it or leave it" is not only unnecessarily dismissive but its a false dichotomy. Liking something and wanting to see it improve are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#153

Post by minimaxir »

ploggingdev wrote: post #67

The voting ring detector is in need of a serious upgrade. There are so many cases of vote solicitation by people with meaningful social media following and their posts even make the front page. It's mostly the Product Hunt style "Hey we launched on HN, check us out" which is code for "upvote my post". People have stopped directly linking to the post submission for fear of tripping the voting ring detector, but they e…

One of the reasons I call out voting manipulation is that people do it on HN unintentionally, mostly due to Product Hunt normalizing it. (atleast people aren’t taking out Twitter ads advertising HN submissions)

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#154

Post by andrewguenther »

wvenable wrote: post #144
andrewguenther wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found moderation on HN to be a bit heavy handed recently. Specifically when it comes to the issue of sexism in SV. No matter the opinion, posts on this seem to get removed shortly after reaching the front page. Question for the mods: Why? It doesn't appear to be a bias towards either side. Is the perception just that people are tied of hearing about it? Why not let the users decide that?

Huge flame wars get a lot of upvotes and lots of comments -- but it's essentially the forum equivalent of candy. If you want your forum to have some nutritional value than you can't let the candy topics run rampant no matter how much people seem to want them.

I think that makes sense. But how much is too much? Say you have a very high post volume on one side of an issue, so you start moderating more heavily. Do you allow posts through representing the other side? Is that "fair"?

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#155

Post by stephengillie »

singularity2001 wrote: post #71

#MeToo just recently I had my first comment on HN 'flagged'. It had several upvotes 19 constructive comments and was perfectly reasonable IMHO. What gives, not a big drama. I shrugged it off, though it left a negative taste of things to come.

Many of us seek to avoid controversy by hiding in technical details. These controversies are mind numbing because all answers are blatantly obvious and there is nothing to compute; merely humans being awful humans.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#156

Post by eropple »

tptacek wrote: post #82
pjc50 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as mentioned, people will definitely use the flag feature to get rid of controversial articles they don't like. Anything about sexism will get flagged into oblivion, for example.

Plenty of people who are deeply concerned about sexism in this industry also flag those stories, because it only takes 2-3 misogynist trolls to create a 300-comment shitshow out of them. There are still kinds of threads that this site simply can't do well, and it's better we not pretend we can until the guidelines and mod tools evolve to actually make them work here.

And, to underline, we have a lot more than 2-3 misogynist trolls in these parts. Reflexive rich-white-dude defensiveness is perhaps HN's greatest challenge.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#157

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

tptacek wrote: post #145
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I would argue that it's different. CNN has a limited amount of time to fill and doesn't accept user submissions. HN has neither constraint, and gives users voting rights over some of the success of each post.

So, you've decided that one organization's private constraints are important and another's aren't.

I don't understand what you're asking. One organization (CNN) has these constraints, another (HN) does not.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#158

Post by minimaxir »

andrewguenther wrote: post #134
flavio81 wrote: post #78

In this thread, some people are complaining of moderators downvoting (lowering the rank) of some submissions over others; and at least one person says "let the readers decide". I think that if I wanted a forum/news site where "the readers decide" and ONLY the readers decide, i'd go to Reddit. No thanks, i prefer HN due to the behind-the-scenes 'curation' or choice of content, which so far usually gives very interesti…

I've found moderation on HN to be a bit heavy handed recently. Specifically when it comes to the issue of sexism in SV. No matter the opinion, posts on this seem to get removed shortly after reaching the front page. Question for the mods: Why? It doesn't appear to be a bias towards either side. Is the perception just that people are tied of hearing about it? Why not let the users decide that?

Typically the mods unflagkill gender discussion threads if they notice in time.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#159

Post by joering2 »

ionised wrote: post #59
joering2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said he registered them from Public Wifi. So anyone registering first account on HN from said cafee will be banned? Why are you so surprised he might have multiple accounts? You really have one email account? How about work-related email? Company-facing related email? If anything, its actually good he has multiple accounts and stuff related to / from his company account he is posting from company, and private is p…

> You really have one email account? No, I have 5, but I only have one HN account. Why would I need more? I was thinking more that he might have been identified as being the same person posting from multiple accounts, and activating some kind of spam/abuse protection.

> Why would I need more?

For same reason you have multiple email addresses no?

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#160

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

_jal wrote: post #142
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is touted around a lot to justify censorship by private parties. Don't be misled - it is censorship. The law doesn't protect this kind of speech, which means they are legally permitted to participate in censorship, but it is censorship all the same. Yours is a common and poor argument for justifying this behavior. There are plenty of things which are both legal and immoral . I would prefer to participat…

This ends up being a debate about word choice, and I normally hate that. But there is good reason to distinguish the two carefully, and the easiest way to do that is word choice. I cannot, by definition, censor someone. I can ban them from my systems, kick them out of my home, refuse to listen to them and tell all my friends to ignore them, but I can't censor them, because I do not have the power of the state behind…

>I cannot, by definition, censor someone. I can ban them from my systems, kick them out of my home, refuse to listen to them and tell all my friends to ignore them, but I can't censor them, because I do not have the power of the state behind my decision. The difference is I can do all of those things, but nobody else needs to put up with my antics. If Dang banned you, you can still talk on thousands of other places.

I would argue that this is definitely censorship. Just because you can go somewhere else doesn't mean you aren't being censored - you are being denied access to the HN audience. Somewhere else isn't going to have the same audience. And that audience isn't making the decision - a small number of moderators are. But you're right that this is just down to pedantic word choice, feel free to discard this thread of the discussion if you'd rather not push the matter further.

>I absolutely agree with you that this argument is used to shut down discussions, but that doesn't mean the distinction isn't important. Just listen to all the dishonest, deceptive bullshit we hear from politicians defending themselves by whining about the First Amendment when criticized, as if their right to speech is a right to be free from criticism. The problem being, of course, that people who don't necessarily know better fall for it and suddenly believe false things about how free speech works.

I'm not here touting free speech like it's a legal right I have as a submitter and an obligation HN has as a publisher. Instead I'm touting it as a damn good idea that makes for a better medium for discussion and suggeting HN embraces it anyway.

Post reply on HN