211–220 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Just to recontextualize that: if I have a blog, am I immoral for not allowing comments? Am I immoral for not allowing guest bloggers? Do I have a moral obligation to allow advertisement?
This is odd. A moral obligation to use one’s private resources to provide an audience to all comers isn’t free speech; it’s not even a free marketplace of ideas. It’s appropriating someone else’s communications infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what you're asking. One organization (CNN) has these constraints, another (HN) does not.
According to you. Does it seem natural that private organizations should be responsive to your conclusions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it does. I think the real issue is that you want to suppress discussion on these topics from people you disagree with, and not all of them qualify as trolls.
Or, maybe I've spent more time working on this than you have, and rather than covering a secret agenda that you've somehow managed to suss out in a subthread of less than 100 words of my comments, you've instead jumped to a conclusion that you can't possibly back with evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Morals are relative. I consider it a moral obligation - you may feel differently. Both are valid.
You seem to believe that it is a moral obligation of anyone with an audience/platform to provide that platform to anyone that wants to use it...? Specifically, you described “depriving (someone of an) audience” as the immoral act. Just to recontextualize that: if I have a blog, am I immoral for not allowing comments? Am I immoral for not allowing guest bloggers? Do I have a moral obligation to allow advertisement? Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... 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…
Case in point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
There are no paid submissions to HN, nor is there an elaborate conspiracy between HN and "certain media orgs" to get paywalled links onto the front page. This is the sort of nonsense tangent crud that the mods would normally zap to the bottom of the thread as "off topic". But they probably won't here, because it concerns their own moderation, and they're generally loathe to intervene --- even to clean up the threads…
I don't mean to derail your point (because it's valid) but I don't believe this statement is true. YC companies can pay[0] to get recruitment posts on the frontpage of HN.
[0]Note - I'm almost certain YC companies pay for this in some form (wether by cash or some other form) and would be happy for a YC company to confirm/deny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no paid submissions to HN, nor is there an elaborate conspiracy between HN and "certain media orgs" to get paywalled links onto the front page. This is the sort of nonsense tangent crud that the mods would normally zap to the bottom of the thread as "off topic". But they probably won't here, because it concerns their own moderation, and they're generally loathe to intervene --- even to clean up the threads…
> There are no paid submissions to HN I don't mean to derail your point (because it's valid) but I don't believe this statement is true. YC companies can pay[0] to get recruitment posts on the frontpage of HN. [0]Note - I'm almost certain YC companies pay for this in some form (wether by cash or some other form) and would be happy for a YC company to confirm/deny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
I believe there is an automatic penalty if the comment count goes above the vote count beyond a certain percentage
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to you. Does it seem natural that private organizations should be responsive to your conclusions?
I think it's entirely valid for me to present my case and submit it for the consideration of the community and the moderators. I don't understand what you're getting at here, you're not making a very compelling argument for anything in particular.
In arguing that CNN's decision not to air your opinions in prime time is legitimate while HN's decision to be selective about what they'll provide a venue for isn't, you've accepted unquestioningly CNN's constraints while dismissing HN's.
In both cases, you're applying an enormous amount of subjectivity. But you'd prefer not to acknowledge that, and so have instead attempted to reframe the discussion as if your conclusions about CNN and HN are self-evidently objective. They are not.