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

Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 498 posts

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#81

Post by Etheryte »

cbeach wrote: post #56
mindcrime wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flags are issued by regular users like us though. What do you expect a moderator to do, except maybe manually intervene to "un dead" something if it seems like a case of overly biased flagging? That's assuming mods have the ability to do that (I've always assumed that they do).

Flagging content should be a privilege that comes at a certain level of trust, and the privilege should be revoked by moderators for people that use flags to further an agenda. Trust in forum users can be measured by various metrics - The Discourse forum software is a good example of how to do this: https://blog.discourse.org/2018/06/understanding-discourse-t...

How do you know that people use flags to further an agenda? I for one both downvote and flag pretty often, but it's largely because I don't like the tone of the discourse, not because of some overarching ploy.

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#82

Post by kccqzy »

otterley wrote: post #76
kccqzy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, having the opinion that manifest V3 is good for users is an opinion that will not thrive on HN. Personally I hope Tom will bring new moderation policies that will truly let unpopular opinions thrive, but I don't have high hopes here since this is just an announcement of a new moderator, not an announcement of new moderation policies.

"Not thriv[ing]" is not the same as being quashed. Minority opinions don't always rise to the popularity or acceptance level of majority opinions, and that's OK.

Let us not use the word "thrive" or "quash" to avoid misunderstandings. To rephrase, I hope that on HN even minority opinions have reasonable rebuttals. Unfortunately what currently happens is people flag minority opinions with no discussion.

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#83

Post by [deleted] »

homefree wrote: post #78
roflyear wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think that HN lets dissenting opinions thrive (well, not anything that is truly controversial but not clearly hateful). That may feel cozy but it's not a reflection of anything pure or good, imo.

Your comment being downvoted for suggesting dissenting opinions are not treated well on HN kinda makes your point. I agree in general and spend less time here because of it. HN is still not as bad as many alternatives, but I wouldn't say it's great for ideologically diverse views.

[deleted]

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#84

Post by megadata »

roflyear wrote: post #38
theoryofx wrote: post #20

One thing that I appreciate about dang, and PG before him, is their intellectual honesty and strong sense of ethics. On the face of it, HN should be terrible. It's a forum owned an investment firm as promotion for their business. But because HN was started by an individual with real values, and has been operated day-to-day by individuals that followed in his tradition, its been capable of unreasonable greatness and r…

I really don't think that HN lets dissenting opinions thrive (well, not anything that is truly controversial but not clearly hateful). That may feel cozy but it's not a reflection of anything pure or good, imo.

I think the fact that you're being downvoted for your comment proves your point.

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#85

Post by hackyhacky »

kccqzy wrote: post #60
pstuart wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about that, but a lot of it depends on what you consider to be "dissenting opinions".

For example, having the opinion that manifest V3 is good for users is an opinion that will not thrive on HN. Personally I hope Tom will bring new moderation policies that will truly let unpopular opinions thrive, but I don't have high hopes here since this is just an announcement of a new moderator, not an announcement of new moderation policies.

> For example, having the opinion that manifest V3 is good for users is an opinion that will not thrive on HN.

There is a difference between expressing unpopular opinions (e.g. "manifest V3 is good"), which receive an appropriate level of considered disagreement; and expressing opinions that are removed administratively.

In my experience, the former is quite common, while the latter only occurs in cases of hateful or off-topic comments. That is as it should be. No one is obligated to agree with you, and that fact should not dissuade you from expressing yourself.

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#86

Post by fwip »

dpkirchner wrote: post #30
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't that be directed to those with an agenda who and are flagging certain posts? Those of us who complain about this highly targeted flagging just want to avoid censorship. I can't see how we need to reflect on this.

Forums like this are "censored" and that's a really good thing. We don't need a steady stream of (for example) hate for women, minorities, and trans people that you see on truly uncensored forums.

This is correct. For the people who disagree, go read Slashdot at -1 for a while. Then pretend that you're one of the people who are targeted by that vitriol, and think about how much you'd read the HN comments if they were like that.

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#87

Post by otterley »

kccqzy wrote: post #82
otterley wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not thriv[ing]" is not the same as being quashed. Minority opinions don't always rise to the popularity or acceptance level of majority opinions, and that's OK.

Let us not use the word "thrive" or "quash" to avoid misunderstandings. To rephrase, I hope that on HN even minority opinions have reasonable rebuttals. Unfortunately what currently happens is people flag minority opinions with no discussion.

I agree that that's not a best practice. It's not what the downvote mechanism was intended for.

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#88

Post by Teever »

I think it's great to see more moderation from non-Americans.

My biggest critique of this site is that the user base and moderation seems very biased with American perspectives to the detriment of the non-American user base and the quality of content as a whole.

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#89

Post by nubinetwork »

eddyg wrote: post #43
bee_rider wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A political talking point can be nationally popular but still political, so, outside the scope of the site. Anyway, which nation? I think we also aren’t allowed to push Communist party talking points here, despite that party being highly supported in some countries (not that I’d want to, just saying, nationally popular doesn’t mean much).

A lot of people don't read the Hacker News Guidelines⁽¹⁾ before submitting and deserve to be flagged. Quoting (emphasis mine): Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. ⁽¹⁾ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguid…

You say that, but there was a big thread on Val Kilmer on the front page this morning...

Re: Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

#90

Post by cbeach »

Zak wrote: post #64
cbeach wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All illegal speech should be hidden from public discussion. However, it would be disconcerting if stating biological facts led to censorship on a forum that focusses on science and technology. The definition of "hate" has been stretched a lot over the last few years, and if that restricts discussion of facts and ideas, then it is harmful.

"Stating biological facts" is code for an opinion about how society should view trans people, which is off-topic for HN.

If stating certain facts is made illegal (by our democratically-elected representatives) then by all means HN will need to censor those facts for the sake of its own self-preservation.

But until then, we should be free to state facts.

> The old adage “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it” was once a touchstone of liberal society. Having been involved for most of my adult life in areas of social debate, it was a phrase I once commonly heard. Not any more.

> Instead, public discourse is marked by efforts to find offence, destroy the character of opponents or ensure reason is smothered by emotional manipulation.

> -- John Deighan https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/banning-those-w...

Post reply on HN