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

Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#21

Post by gjs278 »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #20
RealityVoid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your feeling, but it's also HN standard practice to assume good faith. I think the first comment is quite short and, while it doesn't bring a lot to the table I think it's a feeling echoed by a many in the current community. (Not necessarily me, but the zeitgeist seems to be there). So, in this light, doing a disclosure on each and every comment is... Unreasonable, especially if it's something you feel d…

They're not mutually exclusive and in fact are mutually reinforcing. As readers of a comment we are expected to read it charitably and part of that is assuming that the writer is not shilling. On the other hand we expect writers to disclose major conflicts of interest and I would categorize a direct competitor as a major conflict of interest (note I'm not calling deimorz a shill and do think his/her comment reflects…

yawn. who fucking cares

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#22

Post by aaron695 »

saagarjha wrote: post #19
aaron695 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This didn't answer the question. For we know it only added your biases. What do actual people this is relevant to say? What do the actual users of this think?

Every response adds in the person’s personal biases.

Yes, but I said 'only' your biases.

Top post specifically ask what do the actual people who might want this think.

Closing your eyes and pretending you are blind as an answer....

Compared to what does /r/blind think?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/search?q=TranscribersOfReddit...

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#23

Post by [deleted] »

jimmaswell wrote: post #15
smegma2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do moderators expect to get paid?

They get paid in the satisfaction of exerting control over others, enforcing their bias in a community, and generally feeling powerful. That's the kind of person who tends to self-select to delete posts and ban people all day for free. Moderation gets so bad on reddit (visible from subreddits like watchredditdie and nolockedthreads) that many communities would be better off self-policed solely by up/down votes, all t…

[deleted]

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#24

Post by hdjejdjd »

RealityVoid wrote: post #18
notatoad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't know that it does make a difference to his comment, but on HN it's a standard practice (that i like) to disclose when commenting on your employers and competitors.

I understand your feeling, but it's also HN standard practice to assume good faith. I think the first comment is quite short and, while it doesn't bring a lot to the table I think it's a feeling echoed by a many in the current community. (Not necessarily me, but the zeitgeist seems to be there). So, in this light, doing a disclosure on each and every comment is... Unreasonable, especially if it's something you feel d…

Transparency is not worth it if a lot of people agree with you? Transparency is not worth it if it's something you care deeply about?

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#25

Post by Thorrez »

remote_phone wrote: post #7

What is going to happen when Reddit ipo’s and the employees benefit financially from it, but the moderators who actually make reddit what it is get nothing?

What about the users who post content? Are they expected to get something too? Youtube and Twitch pay people who make content, in addition to paying moderators.

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#26

Post by sarakayakomzin »

notatoad wrote: post #10
Deimorz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing will happen, exactly like the last 14 years with the employees being paid salaries while users run the site for free. Why do you think an IPO will be treated differently?

(deimorz is former Reddit staff and now operates a Reddit competitor)

not really something that applies to this kind of comment.

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#27

Post by RealityVoid »

hdjejdjd wrote: post #24
RealityVoid wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your feeling, but it's also HN standard practice to assume good faith. I think the first comment is quite short and, while it doesn't bring a lot to the table I think it's a feeling echoed by a many in the current community. (Not necessarily me, but the zeitgeist seems to be there). So, in this light, doing a disclosure on each and every comment is... Unreasonable, especially if it's something you feel d…

Transparency is not worth it if a lot of people agree with you? Transparency is not worth it if it's something you care deeply about?

That is NOT what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that sometimes, lack of explicit discolosure can be (IMO) excused if the interest is not intentionally obfuscated and disclosure was done at some point in the past.

That means that, in my point of view, Deimorz raised a good, but biased point while failing to fully discose the contest within his comment, and notatoad brought extra missing context. Both, good things. But I would refrain from painting Deimorz as intentionally misleading, considering this, at most, unintentionally misleading.

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#28

Post by saghm »

RealityVoid wrote: post #27
hdjejdjd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transparency is not worth it if a lot of people agree with you? Transparency is not worth it if it's something you care deeply about?

That is NOT what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that sometimes, lack of explicit discolosure can be (IMO) excused if the interest is not intentionally obfuscated and disclosure was done at some point in the past. That means that, in my point of view, Deimorz raised a good, but biased point while failing to fully discose the contest within his comment, and notatoad brought extra missing context. Both, good things. B…

> I would refrain from painting Deimorz as intentionally misleading

I don't think that's what happened here; in the same way that you saw Deimorz's comment as not malicious, I didn't see the response mentioning their connection to the issue as malicious either. You mention that the "disclosure was done sometime in the past", but I had never heard of them or the site they founded, so I found the comment replying with context to be informative.

Re: Online altruists making Reddit more accessible

#29

Post by notatoad »

RealityVoid wrote: post #18
notatoad wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't know that it does make a difference to his comment, but on HN it's a standard practice (that i like) to disclose when commenting on your employers and competitors.

I understand your feeling, but it's also HN standard practice to assume good faith. I think the first comment is quite short and, while it doesn't bring a lot to the table I think it's a feeling echoed by a many in the current community. (Not necessarily me, but the zeitgeist seems to be there). So, in this light, doing a disclosure on each and every comment is... Unreasonable, especially if it's something you feel d…

In the vein of assuming good faith - please don't assume my comment was in bad faith. It wasn't meant as a criticism or a dismissal of his comment, just relevant context. A disclosure isn't just a disclosure of a potential bias, it's also a disclosure of relevant knowledge and experience.

I knew some context that i thought was relevant, so I added it. I wasn't trying to pick a fight.

Post reply on HN