The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

I fully agree and I think you're making a much more nuanced argument now.

I think HN's moderation has problems with certain topics that have mysteriously become high-voltage in certain social circles, like Damore/men's rights/etc. But crucially, no worse than other general purpose discussion sites and mostly it's still better. You can show dead, view flagged stories etc. The problem is comments that trigger Valley liberals tend to be criticised by the mods on the grounds that other people would respond badly to them, which is annoying, because it's actually those who respond badly that should be given a finger-wag, you'd imagine.

But still that's a far cry from banning politics, which HN doesn't do, and it doesn't even ban discussions on those hot topics, they're just much more likely to be flagged by users. I read HN with showdead turned on and by starting at the (oddly hidden) /active URL, which shows flagged stories, so I have a pretty good sense of how much stuff gets flagged and why. It's a mix of things and not entirely easy to predict. It's not politically biased in exclusively one direction either. To some extent what gets whacked seems to depend on what time it gets posted, ditto for comments. Try criticising the EU on any HN thread during the European daytime and lots of outraged Europhiles will vote you down to -2. Then when the Americans wake up and the "EUropeans" go to bed, the same post will get positively re-rated. It's clearly a matter of voter identity and not the wording of the posts themselves that are the issue.

I used to love Slashdot's style of user-driven moderation. It did require people to pick adjectives to justify their mod decisions, and then the meta-mod process helped weed out abusers. It's a pity it never caught on outside that site. HN's approach is very different, and some days I think it's worse, other days I think it's better. I'm not sure Slashdot had to deal with the same kind of political problems we have today though. Perhaps the closest was open source vs Microsoft, or something like that. I don't recall the same kind of extremist social positions that burn so much bandwidth on all discussion platforms (that don't ban them).

OK, but hospitals don't get built by people waking up in the morning, buying some bricks and stacking them up. Hospitals (and anything else worthwhile) require a lot of people with specialized skills to work together while other people make food and roads and schools and so on. Some amount of talking is required to coordinate it all.

Is the fraction of people who actually build things small? An economist would say no, we're at nearly full employment. To the extent that too many people are doing non-worthwhile things in their job, the solution to that might involve more talking, not less.

I don't really see it though. The article seems pretty clear on what kind of discussion they think is unproductive. One can argue whether text is data, but it still has structure and meaning. When they say "ill-advised citation" or "logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify" that is what they are arguing.

You own argument seem much more a moral one though. For one it doesn't even say what you said it says. For example:

> accusing HN commenters [...] abusing unreliable tools like "data" and "logic" to counter "humane arguments"

Actually says:

> humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational

It doesn't say that human arguments are countered with data or logic. That statement is never made. It doesn't imply it either. If it was to be read as implied it would still be logic and data used in incorrect ways. So it seems hard to favor data if you don't even look at the text at hand.

Instead you seem to pretty much make a "slippery slope" argument, which if not outright is at least close to a moral argument. That questioning data dismisses the role of data, and that this leads to anti-intellectualism. Therefor we shouldn't question data in this way. That is, they are morally wrong to do it. Instead of the less moral argument that misuse of data is what leads to people questioning it.

You also back this up with all kinds of appeal to emotion from it being "a smug, flowery dismissal" to "basically saying I wish these annoying nerds would stop thinking". I don't see that reading as factual. If anything the article seems to argue that people should start thinking. One could argue that their reasoning for why people isn't thinking is incorrect, but that doesn't change the actual meaning in relation to thinking (that they think people should be thinking more). So again you are not arguing the text, but your moral conclusion from the text.

The more critical reading of your comments would simply be that you don't see the problem with data and therefor you don't understand the article's concerns nor the problems with your own comments. Which is pretty much what the article argues people don't do after observing this very forum.

I have a hard time even reconciling your one sentence in this comment. Because you are essentially saying that you rather have flawed data than a humane or morally superior argument. But that again seems very much in itself like a morally superior argument. It rests on that data is always better than a humane argument. Even when incorrect, and potentially more incorrect, than a humane argument.

> I don't like about the popularity vote-moderation that it tends to become a dictatorship of the majority: if you're outside of the accepted canon, you'll get thrown out. It's effective for creating an a fairly consistent echo chamber, but I don't believe it comes with few casualties. You won't see the casualties, because they are censored.

First of all, I'm someone who at times reads a lot of the discussions, and I see each and every casualty by default because I browse with showdead on. I also see it as part of being a good netizen to help with moderation (and doing vouch or flag is part of that), especially for non-commercial endeavors (which, this place, arguably is or is not depending on your viewpoint; for me it is more akin to .org as its not the purely commercial wing of YC). Heck, I even sometimes check out shadowbanned user's posts. I'm weird like that.

Censorship, in my eyes, can only be enacted by a government. There must be some less powerful word which fits the bill.

Every community [website] has its echo chamber because every group of people contains such.

Now that I put what you wrote into a -IMO- more accurate context which I felt was necessary, I'm left to ask you: What is your proposed alternative?

> I'm fine with using a system like that for starters but ultimately let benevolent dictators overrule majority decisions.

We got 2 who can.

I've been on websites where less intelligent people become benevolent dictator. People who don't see their blind spot. More moderators isn't necessarily better. Also, ask yourself: was a website with a lot of moderators such as K5 or Slashdot or Digg or Reddit necessarily better? Are websites with no moderation whatsoever better?

I actually have quite a bunch of "radical" viewpoints myself; and I do not feel like I cannot express myself here. Yes, at times I get upvoted or downvoted where I feel surprised. Both ways. In case of the latter I always try to reflect what I could've done better. In fact, in every conflict I have I try to reflect what my part in the conflict is.

That's one of my core personal rules before I downvote or upvote -- am I doing this because the comment is objectively good / true / insightful (or the opposites), or because I simply agree with it.

I try and avoid the latter, to the extent humanly possible.