231–240 of 447 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not applicable to corporations. Bad faith actions are rampant, and I am unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to billion dollar companies.
How about incompetence instead of stupidity, would that apply to many billion dollar companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that were right, then HN would be overrun by spam.
So you think secretive measures more often defeat spammers than trusting users? I'd argue HN's content could be a lot better than it currently is. Content curation is necessary, but shadow moderation is not helping. When a forum removes visible consequences, it does not prepare its users to learn from their mistakes. I'll admit, I find HN to be more transparently moderated than Reddit and Twitter, but let's not prete…
Yes. And it's really not a close question.
"Regular users" don't have to be platform experts and learn tricks and stuff. They just post normal links and comments and never run into moderation at all.
Many words about site moderation have been posted in the thread.. Who here has actually moderate(s|d) a forum/chat site?
And I'm feeling HN's position, even though I occasionally trip some of the mechanisms here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word censorship has so many meanings that I have to ask what you mean by it before I can say whether I see it that way. Is it censorship that the rules of chess say you can't poke someone's queen off the board? We're trying to play a particular game here.
Censorship has a very defined meaning. To take the chess analogy, it would be like allowing one side to poke the queen off the board, and not allow the other. This is very much like what happens at HN today. You're dang right, trying to play a particular [rigged] game here.
The one that I think makes the most clear sense is "censorship" by a state power. But you must be thinking of something different, because HN is not a state power.
man curl
-b, --cookie
(HTTP) Pass the data to the HTTP server in the Cookie header. It is supposedly the data previously received from the server in a "Set-Cookie:" line.
Add that option to your curl tests.
---
$ time curl -s -b -A "curl/8.2.1" -e ";auto" -L https://t.co/4fs609qwWt -o /dev/null | sha256sum
eb9996199e81c3b966fa3d2e98e126516dfdd31f214410317f5bdcc3b241b6a2 -
real 0m1.245s
user 0m0.087s
sys 0m0.034s
---
$ time curl -s -b -e ";auto" -L https://t.co/4fs609qwWt -o /dev/null | sha256sum
eb9996199e81c3b966fa3d2e98e126516dfdd31f214410317f5bdcc3b241b6a2 -
real 0m1.265s
user 0m0.103s
sys 0m0.023s
---
$ time curl -s -b -A "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0" -e ";auto" -L https://t.co/4fs609qwWt -o /dev/null | sha256sum
eb9996199e81c3b966fa3d2e98e126516dfdd31f214410317f5bdcc3b241b6a2 -
real 0m1.254s
user 0m0.100s
sys 0m0.018
---Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the value Breitbart adds to the internet outweigh the negatives of turning people into dangerous fascists by weaponizing misinformation? No. Does the value added by sources like the NYT outweigh the negatives of being occasionally biased or outright wrong? Yes.
There is no objective, public, or shared "value" at play here. The only "values" that matter are the personal whims of whoever happens to own Twitter, or Google or Facebook.
I think that HN itself also shadow flags submissions from a list of domains it doesn't like. Try submitting a URL from the following domains, and it will be automatically flagged (but you can't see it's flagged unless you log out): - archive.is - watcher.guru - stacker.news - zerohedge.com - freebeacon.com - thefederalist.com - breitbart.com
Well, yes, many sites are banned on HN. Others are penalized (see e.g. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... ). None of this is secret, though we don't publish the lists themselves. Edit: about 67k sites are banned on HN. Here's a random selection of 10 of them: vodlockertv.com biggboss.org infoocode.com newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com moringajuice.wordpress.com surrogacymumbai.com max…
For example, a recent submission (of mine):
"Luis Buñuel: The Master of Film Surrealism"
it had no discussion space because (I guess) it comes from fairobserver.com . Now, I understand that fairobserver.com may had been an hive of dubious publishing historically, but it makes little sense we cannot discuss Buñuel...
Maybe a rough discriminator (function approximator, Bayesian etc.) could try and decide (based at least on the title) whether a submission from "weak editorial board" sites seems to be material to allow posts or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I came to HN because it seemed to be a place of free dialogue. > It's certainly under no obligation to promote right-wing propaganda and hate. It's certainly under no obligation to promote any propaganda or hate. That's what makes the site great. The HN crowd is not your average layman - it's largely well read and educated people. Why not let them decide what is propaganda and what's not (as opposed to some arbitrary…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, unless surrogacymumbai.com is where we post right-wing news from, that's hardly a problem, eh?
I posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37131212 before noticing that you'd already made the same argument - sorry! But I have to leave it up because penispowerworldwide.com makes me laugh.