The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News • Hacker News Board

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#481

Post by Causality1 » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #446

dunkelheit wrote: post #147

I guess it is a perfect opportunity to thank dang and sctb for their unobtrusive and friendly moderation efforts. The article itself was a bit disappointing because it focused on political issues. In my opinion the strength of HN in this regard is that it is both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right", as evidenced by the fact that a comment on a controversial topic can easily float near zero points while rakin…

In my opinion the strength of HN in this regard is that it is both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right" Such labels are a part and parcel of in-group/out-group psychology. In 2019, by analogy, we should all be wary when people are starting to probe those "ports." I'm pretty sure that I've been seen as both by different people at different times, though recently on HN I've been spending a lot of energy defendi…

Yes. One of the most wearying things about the modern web is having to always tailor your comments and arguments to whatever atmosphere is going on at the moment, particularly when you're forced to constantly use analogies to get around reactionary biases.

For example, if the current discussion is circle-jerking about how oppressed men/women/blacks/whites are, you end up having to frame any defense or problem relating to the disfavored group in terms of the favored group just to avoid getting downvoted to oblivion. You can never argue on principle, you have to put it in terms of what/who people like at the moment. If you don't, you get labeled as a member of or "on the team" of the disfavored group and summarily dismissed.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#482

Post by scottlocklin » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #247

FussyZeus wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually my sole complaint with HN. I love the community and I understand where the moderators are coming from, but I feel that it's important to point out that the position of "keep politics out of $X" is the purest expression of privilege, and in general is an attitude that embraces the status quo, no matter how horrifying it might be for the unprivileged. I'm not saying HN should allow ALL political discus…

Question: who does a policy of "no political discussion" most favour? The empowered, or the disempowered?

>Question: who does a policy of "no political discussion" most favour?

How about people who are sick of the silly ass and mostly irrelevant toxic political bullshit lizard men and their PR firms use to drum up electoral turnout? I'm here for the 1337 h4x0rz, not what some blue haired SRE ops ding dong or buzzcut f35 engineer thinks about Todays Issues as defined on TV.

Anyway, hats off to sctb and dang, who do a great job despite the wanking that is allowed on here.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#483

Post by ethbro » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #469

ethbro wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw parent commenter as making an epistemological argument rather than a moral one. There are two fundamentally different sources of truth: ethical consensus and physical data. They are ultimately incompatible, in that only a single option can be your ultimate source of truth. Albeit other(s) can be valued to some degree. The issue they took, and I would take too, with that portion of the New Yorker article is that…

> ... it [the cited paragraph] attacks the idea of physical data as a valid, supreme source of truth. No, it does not. It attacks the idea of using glib, incomplete, or poorly examined "facts" as the basis for a valid argument. If you want to say that poorly vetted "facts" are a basis for "supreme truth" and, further, that you can only choose that or else some kind of mushy ethical considerations... that's your prero…

] "humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational. Logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify broad moral positions."

Those two points can't be construed any other way than as anti-intellectual. They were cheap shots, and the author should have known they were a cheap shots.

That those points are somewhat incongruous with the subsequent assertion and surrounding piece doesn't mean they're any less anti-intellectual.

] "The most admired arguments are made with data, but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data tend to be ancillary concerns."

And indeed, I'd say that prefacing the immediately above (defensible) with the prior claims (indefensible) is the reason this entire comment thread exists.

The author could have made a much stronger argument about poor citation and fact checking, but they instead chose to include what feels like knee-jerk humanities logic horror, substantially muddying their point.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#484

Post by fzeroracer » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #462

fzeroracer wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I've seen here. I've had to read through reports and papers people have cited to see whether or not the paper supported what they were arguing. Or sometimes, people would link to incredibly biased sources whom bury the lede of the stories they cite which in turn only tangentially support what they said.

Isn't that still an improvement over the alternative though? If the fundamental nature of short-duration comment consumption is antithetical to fact checking, that's certainly a problem. But it's still superior to uncited points, as it is ultimately verifiable. In a choice between the two, I'll take the ill (claims appearing more supported than they are) for the good (inculcating a culture of transparent citation).

I'd honestly argue that it can be worse. If someone cites a claim with a bogus citation and no one chooses to challenge it, then that becomes something that's not just an opinion, but something that's viewed to be scientific fact.

For example have you ever been in an argument where you recall reading a paper or statistic, but don't have it on hand? What if that statistic was a false correlation drummed up by a highly politicized thinktank?

This is why it's so important to not leave potentially misleading or outright wrong citations unchallenged. This is sort of how the 'vaccines cause autism' claims can quickly spiral out of control. It requires people to behave earnestly and not mislead with their citations.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#485

Post by Kye » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

cowabungacode wrote: post #477

wpietri wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right" I definitely want to give credit to dang and sctb for making it that way. It could have gone differently. In particular, the no-politics argument is basically a fancy way of saying "nothing that challenges the status quo please". [1] I really appreciate them trying to keep the forum in a state where these discussion can at least happen. I would have left long ago if…

> I would have left long ago if flagging had continued to be used to kill topics. Flagging is frequently used to kill topics still. Climate change articles are still flagged mercilessly, before any discussion starts and without regard for the high-quality of the articles. dang as a moderator has specifically said that articles about Russia hacking elections are penalized prior to any votes or comments starting (edit:…

I would like to discuss certain intersections of politics and technology, but HN has proven time and time again to be incapable of handling them without turning into a screaming match. Such topics require heavy, active moderation in a community with such conflicting views, and that kind of moderation tends to lead to more screaming matches.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#486

Post by hollerith » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #317

rusk wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right" both and neither. Partisan discussions, or even any kind of bitching at all ... are outright discouraged. I often step out of line in this regard and don't always agree, but I'm also confident that folk on "the other side" face the same kind of treatment. Though frustrating at times, I respect that it keeps things clean and helps cut out a lot of nonsense, of which…

I LOVE this paragraph. God-damn nails the problems of HN (and other tech-heavy web communities) like nothing else... > The site’s now characteristic tone of performative erudition— > hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative— > often masks a deeper recklessness. Ill-advised citations proliferate; > thought experiments abound; humane arguments are dismissed as > emotional or irrational. Logic, applied na…

The person that wrote that paragraph would really hate the comp.* and sci.* newsgroups in the early 1990s!

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#487

Post by dymk » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #409

hnModsRDanger wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unobtrusive? Try having a legitimate criticism of Apple. Odds are it gets flagged. I don't mean to limit it to Apple, the mods have a heavy hand.

This hasn't been my experience at all. What was your "legitimate criticism"?

Oh, bad opinions get downvoted or flagged all the time regardless of how they’re presented.

My opinion of “ad tracking is not harmful” obliterated whenever I express it.

"Yelp brings value to its users" was obliterated a few days ago.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#488

Post by nabnob » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #85

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #42

Congratulations to "paulmd" for getting a flagged comment cited in The New Yorker! ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13094354 is the comment, which I find entirely reasonable but obviously people disagreed, or at least it was considered off-topic)

Really surprising to see that comment, which, full disclosure, I agree with, get flag-killed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it get a few downvotes. But rarely have I ever seen a thorough, well-sourced, and civil comment actually be flag-killed. If anything, the shallow replies to his comment are the type of things that typically seem to get downvoted (though not necessarily flagged either).

Recently I've started going through the greyed/flagged comments at the bottom of every post - you would be surprised how often there are reasonable, well thought out comments downvoted or flagged because it hit a nerve with enough HN users.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#489

Post by hollerith » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

crispyambulance wrote: post #317

rusk wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right" both and neither. Partisan discussions, or even any kind of bitching at all ... are outright discouraged. I often step out of line in this regard and don't always agree, but I'm also confident that folk on "the other side" face the same kind of treatment. Though frustrating at times, I respect that it keeps things clean and helps cut out a lot of nonsense, of which…

I LOVE this paragraph. God-damn nails the problems of HN (and other tech-heavy web communities) like nothing else... > The site’s now characteristic tone of performative erudition— > hyperrational, dispassionate, contrarian, authoritative— > often masks a deeper recklessness. Ill-advised citations proliferate; > thought experiments abound; humane arguments are dismissed as > emotional or irrational. Logic, applied na…

The person that wrote that paragraph would really hate the comp.* and sci.* newsgroups of the early 1990s, compared to which HN is a bunch of young women at a tea party spending most of their time advocating fashionable social causes and worrying whether they've hurt each others feelings.

Re: The Lonely Work of Moderating Hacker News

#490

Post by throwaway5752 » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #394

thisabled wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always make a fresh new throwaway account here every time I make a post, and,so, by this post you can deduce yourself. This is a zero-minute account, as all my accounts are. You're welcome.

This is actually something the site guidelines ask you not to do. Would you mind reviewing them? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html HN is a community. It's totally fine not to use your real name, but users do need some identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=a…

We all really appreciate the work you do here.