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

161–170 of 409 posts

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#161

Post by root_axis »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #150
root_axis wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This argument is touted around a lot to justify censorship by private parties. Don't be misled - it is censorship It's not about justifications, it's about prerogatives . > There are plenty of things which are both legal and immoral. Despite what you seem to be implying, the operators of a privately run forum have no moral obligation to let anyone speak, regardless of how that might impact the quality of discussion…

Morals are relative. I consider it a moral obligation - you may feel differently. Both are valid.

Well if all moral perspectives are valid then you should not use morality as the foundation of your argument.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#162

Post by ballenf »

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.

> ... until the guidelines and mod tools evolve to actually make them work here.

I think the "until" is "until all readers of this site share a single sociological view on controversial issues and/or lose all interest in having their view heard." Asking your moderation tools to solve societal problems or prevent a discussion forum from reflecting a raging societal debate is trying to hide from the problem.

> it only takes 2-3 misogynist trolls to create a 300-comment shitshow

I get what you mean, but would argue that, "it only takes 2-3 trolls plus 300 people who respond to them to create a 300-comment shitshow". An ignored troll is a powerless troll. They get their power to disrupt from the responses, not their words.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#163

Post by maccard »

wyager wrote: post #94
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 think that if I wanted a forum/news site where "the readers decide" and ONLY the readers decide, i'd go to Reddit. The Reddit mods and admins are notoriously censorious. If you want minimal moderation, you would need to go to the anonymous imageboards. The content produced there is better in some ways, worse in many.

> The content produced there is better in some ways, worse in many.

Could you provide some examples of how the content is better there? I'd be interested, but any time I've ever tried to investigate, I can't get past all the unfettered crap

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#164

Post by hsod »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #151
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?

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.

The first day or two of what?

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#165

Post by grzm »

mnglkhn2 wrote: post #148
minimaxir wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better argument against is that the NYTimes consistently produces good journalism .

You will notice that I did not comment on the quality of NYTimes' articles. And it was a convenient example as it is an easy one to spot (at this moment there are 2 articles from NYTimes on HN front page). The question stands: should cross promotion deals be disclosed?

Above you posit the behavior you observe is due to a change in HN membership taste or some kind of deal between HN and NYT. I think the former is the easier to support: people often comment on changes on site membership. You appear to be giving more credence to the latter without evidence, which amounts to accusations of shillage. If you've got something firm, by all means, present it. If not, please abide by the guidelines which ask us not to engage in unsubstantiated accusations: generally this is applied with respect to other organizations, but I think HN should be given the benefit of the doubt here as well.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#166

Post by [deleted] »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #127
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…

As the author of this article, I agree with you. I applaud the HN moderation for their work, and I think the result is a really great place for news and discussion. I'm just calling for greater transparency - and pointing out that the users are abusing the flagging feature.

[deleted]

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#167

Post by bradleyjg »

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?

The users are deciding. We are flagging these stories because we don't see the value in endless flamewars over the same subject. If you can't get enough of debates about sexism in SV there are lots of other places on the internet for that.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#168

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

root_axis wrote: post #161
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morals are relative. I consider it a moral obligation - you may feel differently. Both are valid.

Well if all moral perspectives are valid then you should not use morality as the foundation of your argument.

Well, I'm not presenting an objective argument. I am presenting a subjective opinion.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#169

Post by 1001101 »

arkades wrote: post #43
spash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Censorship by Ministry of Culture of the People's Republic of China" How about: "Curation by Ministry of Culture of the People's Republic of China"

There’s a difference between a state actor controlling the whole of the public arena and a private individual controlling their own privately-sponsored forum; the latter allows you to crack open a blog and flog whatever opinion you want, and the former does not. I admit there’s some gray area for something like google, which by virtue of its size and role as intermediary has censorship abilities approaching governmen…

I'm somewhere between you and the parent. So much of the public square, figuratively speaking, is owned by private companies today. It's good to understand what the parameters are so you can know to what extent free expression and the free flow of ideas is occurring in a particular venue. Personally, I'm wary of just about any form of censorship, but I recognize it's a continuum, and not even I have my settings at 0.

Re: Analyzing HN moderation and censorship

#170

Post by aaron-lebo »

hsod wrote: post #164
aaron-lebo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first day or two of what?

Christmas of course.

What I mean is if you read the comments on an article about James Damore the day it broke and read the comments were the article to be posted today, they haven't really evolved. It's the same canards over and over. Damore being an example of a story that users were indignant about getting knocked off the frontpage.

Post reply on HN