341–350 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the explanation for this removal condemning the ongoing fascist revolt in the US is where? At least that's what it looks like to an outside observer from elsewhere in the world. It's been fascinating as an outsider to watch your republicans suddenly unsure about the second amendment after the last few days.
Mods didn't remove it, user flags did.
The loose application of "fascism" to disliked ideas reflects a culture of perpetual outrage and victimhood, diluting the term's historical weight.
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation
https://profrjstarr.com/the-psychology-of-us/the-need-to-be-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrage_porn
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768489375/how-outrage-is-hija...
https://theconversation.com/outrage-culture-is-a-big-toxic-p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really wish there was more transparency around mod actions
I think generally the mods like to avoid anything involving "politics" since it's likely to start a flame war. The issue, of course, is that literally anything can be "political", and moreover by trying to actively avoid political discussions you sort of tacitly endorse the status quo. It's a tough line to draw, and I'd be lying if I said where I knew where to draw it; HN is a fun forum specifically because the moder…
I've long argued for a 'other' category as one overflow method or a homepage that is generic and subject specific pages for those that only want LLM news or Apple. I'm sure we could agree on a 10 level 'top' set with 'All' the default. That's one step closer to Reddit of course, but with the growth that HN has seen over the years you can't continue to pretend that the 'small town' measures still apply to this big city. A lot of this really is just about scale and you need to adapt to scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the mods like to avoid anything involving "politics" since it's likely to start a flame war. You're correct that we like to avoid flamewars, but not correct to say "anything involving politics". We don't try to (or want to) avoid politics altogether—a certain number of threads with political overlap have always been part of the mix here*. For (reams of) past explanations see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&pa…
Let me just preempt this by saying that I think you and tomhow do a very good job at moderating, and I'm just some goober on the internet sitting on a high-horse, so take what I say with as much respect as possible. Hacker News is my favorite forum in no small part because this forum's users are, on average, a lot more educated than the average internet user. If not formally, a lot of the people here still do value l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me just preempt this by saying that I think you and tomhow do a very good job at moderating, and I'm just some goober on the internet sitting on a high-horse, so take what I say with as much respect as possible. Hacker News is my favorite forum in no small part because this forum's users are, on average, a lot more educated than the average internet user. If not formally, a lot of the people here still do value l…
I think a useful litmus test for these kinds of stories is: do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs? That's what this site is for. If not, they're wrong for this site; more than wrong, corrosive. The stories themselves aren't bad (I have a lot of strong political beliefs too), but they're incompatible…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the mods like to avoid anything involving "politics" since it's likely to start a flame war. You're correct that we like to avoid flamewars, but not correct to say "anything involving politics". We don't try to (or want to) avoid politics altogether—a certain number of threads with political overlap have always been part of the mix here*. For (reams of) past explanations see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&pa…
For what it’s worth, I visit HN before my first coffee, and I am fine with not getting a faceful of US politics first thing in the morning. If I need that I can look in any other direction already. I visit this website specifically because it talks about other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> I think a useful litmus test for these kinds of stories is: do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs? That's what this site is for. This would disqualify more than half of AI/LLM/ stories. This seems like a cope out. It is our inability as tech people to embrace the discomfort that is not rational an…
Huge problem on those stories, too! A lot of those threads are dreadful. My point exactly.
In that we are practicing the very doublethink we criticize in the society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a useful litmus test for these kinds of stories is: do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs? That's what this site is for. If not, they're wrong for this site; more than wrong, corrosive. The stories themselves aren't bad (I have a lot of strong political beliefs too), but they're incompatible…
The easy fix is to let go of the unsiloed concept and to add a couple (<10) main subjects and an 'all' page. That way whoever wants to can discuss what they want and flags can go back to their original meaning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huge problem on those stories, too! A lot of those threads are dreadful. My point exactly.
My point is that the discrimination to flag one and not the other seems arbitrary. It has nothing to do with promoting/preserving intellectual curiosity etc. We are deluding ourselves by repeating that. In that we are practicing the very doublethink we criticize in the society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I thought we hated tone policing here? I don't see anything wrong with it. Yes, the executive branch wants chaos. If we can't agree on that (something both sides of the lane agree on, even of the reaction differs) how can we really dig into solutions?
The guidelines read clearly to me like tone policing is expected:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.