111–120 of 580 posts
I'm guessing it is a "hand tuned" search result tweak because just appending "china" returns a few images: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tank%20man%20china (For those who don't see results, this is my screen grab of the above at 18:12 UTC : https://imgur.com/a/3tzPV49 ) Also, "Tiananmen Square massacre" still returns some image results: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Tiananmen+Square+massac... Therefore,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Political" or "controversial" content is always^H^H^H^H sometimes punished by HN (sorry, dang). While I think this is a highly questionable policy which is itself political in nature (reinforcing as it does the status quo), it need not be specific to China. A statement would certainly be nice, however.
That is false. If you changed "always" to "sometimes" you'd be on the green. I've written about this extensively: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... Some good threads to start with might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902490 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 . Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 , which shows how far back political discussion goes…
I think there is a massive difference between political discourse (which are mostly about opinions) and fact vs lies discourse (which I would qualify as one where something that is definitely provable or in this case definitely happened is denied as untruth or never happening by one side, with said side pushing for increased conflict in the discourse so as to get the entire thing stopped).
I understand the wish and sometime need to push the first away, but the second is entirely different and when you agree to push it away you are by default siding with the lies faction, even if you have a very good and valid and pure reason for it. The question then remaining being, what obligation has a platform that's massively use for discourse to remain partial to those things ? Legally none, at least in the US. Morally, to each their own.
I understand the issue is way more complex than that, and that you have a third type of discourse which uses the same rules to push something false (eg bill gates vaccine nanobots get activated by 5g !!!), and I have no idea what the correct solution is or isn't. Just wanted to maybe clear out why "we're not taking side" is taken by some as taking sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This post is on the front page right now (edit: and now also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27396783 ) - that's the opposite of "disappearing". I'd have to see links to the other ones. Here's one tip for you guys, from years-long, world-weary experience: if you're coming up with sensational explanations in breathless excitement, it's almost certainly untrue. Edit: ok, here's what happened. Users flagged https:/…
We were told the same thing about the lab leak theory from: Social media companies, Mainstream media, and the government. The reason for distrust is valid. We live in an age of rapidly increasing censorship and the CCPs growing reach of control in American discourse. Skepticism is becoming the default for very real reasons.
You don't have to believe me, of course, but if you decide not to, consider these two simple observations.
First, lying would be stupid, because the good faith of the community is literally the only thing that makes this site valuable. So, sheer self-interest plus not-being-an-idiot should be enough to tip your priors. I may be an idiot about most things, but I hope I'm not incompetent at the most important part of my job. The value of a place like HN can easily disappear in one false step. Therefore the only policy which has ever made any sense is (1) tell the truth; (2) try never to do anything that isn't defensible to the community; and (3) acknowledge when we fuck up and fix it.
Second, if you're going to draw dramatic conclusions about sinister operations, it's good for mental health to have at least one really solid piece of information you can check them against. Otherwise you end up in the wilderness of mirrors. What you see on internet forums—or rather, what you think you see on internet forums, which then somehow becomes what you see because that's how the brain does it—is simply not solid information. Remember what von Neumann said about fitting an elephant? (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) He asked for a mere five degrees of freedom. Nebulous internet spaces give you hundreds at least. That's way beyond enough to justify anything—even dipping in a ladle and getting one ladle's worth is enough to justify anything.
(Edit: people have been asking what Angela Lansbury has to do with this. If you don't mind spoilers, Angela will explain it for you here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3ZnaRMhD_A.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394925 [Flagged] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27395028 [Marked as dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394943 [Currently on page 2]
dang 27 minutes ago [–] [flagged] on submissions nearly always means users flagged it. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#flag https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27397158
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This post is on the front page right now (edit: and now also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27396783 ) - that's the opposite of "disappearing". I'd have to see links to the other ones. Here's one tip for you guys, from years-long, world-weary experience: if you're coming up with sensational explanations in breathless excitement, it's almost certainly untrue. Edit: ok, here's what happened. Users flagged https:/…
I don't doubt posts are flagged by users as opposed to moderation. But at the same time, it also seems like flagging can be too easily abused, and can lead to accusations of censorship and distrust. (Though I've certainly seen it work well in cases, especially for false/defamatory articles.) But it really does seem like we're at the point where longstanding users need to also be able to vouch for flagged stories, or…
Isn't this already a thing with the "vouch" button on said posts? https://i.imgur.com/Hp9nu58.png
Hmmm, DuckDuckGo image search shows some people standing next to tanks but not the tank man photo. I guess it makes sense since DDG uses bing for their search tech but it's pretty disappointing that you can get uncensored searches or privacy but not both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair a search of tank man on bing does have results including pictures. For some reason the same imagines that appear on the main search results page don't show up on the image results tab.
I'm in the US searching for it and getting nothing for the image results. Why are the images specifically blocked? I don't think there's anything fair about this. I don't like the idea of a US company censoring information from me in this way. Because now I'm really curious as to what else is being censored/flagged out.
@dang, I think we need an explanation for why Tank Man-related content on Hacker News has been disappearing all day. I usually trust HN to be a bastion of free speech, and if there isn't some kind of proportionate response here, I don't believe myself or many others here will be able to see it that way going forward. EDIT: Thank you for your response, dang. Hacker News is a special place, which is why we have respond…
HN is not a bastion of free speech and it is not meant to be. Controversial topics are routinely flagged because they incite flame wars and downvoting because you disagree is considered acceptable. However, in this particular case, I don't think it should be flagged unless the comment sections becomes unmanageable. It may be a political topic but it is seen from a technical angle, and indeed, a lot of the comments ar…
If something disappears, no one has bad feelings about it.
If something two people are arguing over disappears, then two people carry simmering resentment about it (ironically, likely more than if their verbal spat had reached a cathartic conclusion), that eventually manifests in their next comments, and which ultimately leads to an erosion of common decency and civility.
It's a fine line, but it's definitely a line rather than right vs wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394925 [Flagged] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27395028 [Marked as dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394943 [Currently on page 2]
dang 27 minutes ago [–] [flagged] on submissions nearly always means users flagged it. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#flag https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27397158
