Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#11

Post by theCrowing »

mactavish88 wrote: post #9
theCrowing wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headline of the site and your submission is also just plain wrong. Maybe there is no manmade climate emergency but there is most certainly a climate emergency. Also there is nothing scientific on the site only an open letter... it's just really bad content. You don't know how many people have seen or voted on it you are just believing that nobody has seen it. Multiple users need to flag your post before it become…

I think this is the key problem. It seems you assume I have a particular position on climate change, as opposed to my actual intention of making people aware of this declaration. Those are very different positions. Also, my second submission was a link to a specific page on the site where I copied/pasted the title verbatim, and it was flagged immediately. This leads me to believe that my post wasn’t flagged because o…

The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#12

Post by mactavish88 »

defrost wrote: post #8

You submitted two links, both to an industry group headed up by Guus Berkhout: [quote] Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made into law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figur…

So this is exactly the perspective I’m looking for from HN.

If my post (which clearly wasn’t for or against the linked material) was not immediately flagged and killed then it would’ve been possible to actually solicit this kind of perspective.

But if my post is immediately killed then I never get to see this kind of insight.

Hence my question about whether there’s a better model than simply flagging content, as HN currently works.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#13

Post by theCrowing »

mactavish88 wrote: post #12
defrost wrote: post #8

You submitted two links, both to an industry group headed up by Guus Berkhout: [quote] Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made into law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figur…

So this is exactly the perspective I’m looking for from HN. If my post (which clearly wasn’t for or against the linked material) was not immediately flagged and killed then it would’ve been possible to actually solicit this kind of perspective. But if my post is immediately killed then I never get to see this kind of insight. Hence my question about whether there’s a better model than simply flagging content, as HN c…

[flagged]

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#14

Post by mactavish88 »

theCrowing wrote: post #11
mactavish88 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the key problem. It seems you assume I have a particular position on climate change, as opposed to my actual intention of making people aware of this declaration. Those are very different positions. Also, my second submission was a link to a specific page on the site where I copied/pasted the title verbatim, and it was flagged immediately. This leads me to believe that my post wasn’t flagged because o…

The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Don’t you think it’s at least be insightful for whoever’s submitting content to understand why it was flagged?

If it’s content a submitter’s come across for the first time, and they don’t see it discussed here on HN, so they post it, and it immediately gets suppressed without any explanation, how does that help the submitter? (e.g. if it’s been autoflagged, it’d be helpful to see a reason for that, and perhaps a link to past discussion the submitter might have missed).

It just concerns me that this mechanism could be prematurely filtering out many valuable conversations that I’d like to be aware of.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#15

Post by mactavish88 »

theCrowing wrote: post #13
mactavish88 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is exactly the perspective I’m looking for from HN. If my post (which clearly wasn’t for or against the linked material) was not immediately flagged and killed then it would’ve been possible to actually solicit this kind of perspective. But if my post is immediately killed then I never get to see this kind of insight. Hence my question about whether there’s a better model than simply flagging content, as HN c…

[flagged]

Who said you had to do the work?

If this was a topic that was somehow discussed previously, should there not be some kind of mechanism to indicate this in the flagging process? (Ideally automated)

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#16

Post by theCrowing »

mactavish88 wrote: post #15
theCrowing wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Who said you had to do the work? If this was a topic that was somehow discussed previously, should there not be some kind of mechanism to indicate this in the flagging process? (Ideally automated)

Clintel was even in the news cycle a few years ago and you submit it without even googling it before? You impute that I have a particular stance on climate change, but I honestly believe you have because no person without an agenda would play naive like you.

I myself just hate misinformation and people that share and play victim when nobody engages with it.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#17

Post by acdha »

mactavish88 wrote: post #14
theCrowing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Don’t you think it’s at least be insightful for whoever’s submitting content to understand why it was flagged? If it’s content a submitter’s come across for the first time, and they don’t see it discussed here on HN, so they post it, and it immediately gets suppressed without any explanation, how does that help the submitter? (e.g. if it’s been autoflagged, it’d be helpful to see a reason for that, and perhaps a link…

One thing to remember is that this an old debate and there’s been a ton of astroturf on behalf of the fossil fuel industry since at least the 1980s. Those operatives rely on making things sound plausible so it’s not your fault for finding it interesting - making it sound that way is quite literally these guy’s jobs - but you’ll get their accumulated bad karma as people see it, recognize the source as a bad faith actor, and don’t want to spend their time rehashing something for the dozenth time.

I’d recommend searching a bit first but also avoid the sources like that who are trying to use your credibility on behalf of their clients. They will shed no tears for the cost to your reputation, which is deplorable but also predictable.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#18

Post by theCrowing »

mactavish88 wrote: post #14
theCrowing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Don’t you think it’s at least be insightful for whoever’s submitting content to understand why it was flagged? If it’s content a submitter’s come across for the first time, and they don’t see it discussed here on HN, so they post it, and it immediately gets suppressed without any explanation, how does that help the submitter? (e.g. if it’s been autoflagged, it’d be helpful to see a reason for that, and perhaps a link…

That's your problem. If you see your content flagged immediately your first course of action is complaining about it? Why not do the rational thing and google it so you can understand why other people flag it. As I said it's not my job to make you comprehend that the content you submitted is subpar quality. It's yours.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#19

Post by mactavish88 »

theCrowing wrote: post #16
mactavish88 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said you had to do the work? If this was a topic that was somehow discussed previously, should there not be some kind of mechanism to indicate this in the flagging process? (Ideally automated)

Clintel was even in the news cycle a few years ago and you submit it without even googling it before? You impute that I have a particular stance on climate change, but I honestly believe you have because no person without an agenda would play naive like you. I myself just hate misinformation and people that share and play victim when nobody engages with it.

I get literally nothing from the news search in DuckDuckGo when I search for “clintel”

It still seems you assume I have a particular agenda here beyond wanting to have a conversation on the topic.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

#20

Post by yuppie_scum »

mactavish88 wrote: post #14
theCrowing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Don’t you think it’s at least be insightful for whoever’s submitting content to understand why it was flagged? If it’s content a submitter’s come across for the first time, and they don’t see it discussed here on HN, so they post it, and it immediately gets suppressed without any explanation, how does that help the submitter? (e.g. if it’s been autoflagged, it’d be helpful to see a reason for that, and perhaps a link…

Well now you know, dude. Take the L on this post and move on with your life.
Post reply on HN