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

Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

hckrnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#31

Post by zitterbewegung »

md224 wrote: post #4

I'd love to get a discussion going on whether people support or oppose the flagging (and subsequent disappearance) of politically charged topics on HN. While HN is not a politics site, some of these censored topics have been tech-related. I guess it comes down to a value judgement: is it worth discussing tech politics even if it spawns flamewars and heated arguments? I think it's worth it, but this is certainly debat…

The problem that HN faces is the fact that as social news aggregators become larger and larger the quality and type of user changes. To enforce this we have flagging and removal of content. The problem with this aggregators is enforcement and policing doesn't scale. Also, as the aggregator becomes larger people want to discuss more and more topics.

Personally I would rather have a HN that doesn't have politically charged topics. Although some of those topics are relevant to the community if we start letting more and more political topics then we can have factions of users and once that starts HN won't be fun to read anymore.

Reddit attempted to solve this through subreddits but that didn't work. Slashdot used moderation. Digg died because they released a new version. I suppose either the censorship or the flagging and removal of political topics and otherwise will be the thing that eliminates HN.

I think that any social news aggregator has a shelf life and you can't keep it from degrading to either something you hate and or something that doesn't serve the people who run the site.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#32

Post by Cozumel »

stormbrew wrote: post #19
jacquesm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I've vouched for it too, mainly because it would be nice to have the option on HN to simply ignore the flags for those who feel they can handle it and don't need to be told by others what they can and can not discuss. It would be a pretty simple affair software wise, those that need it can have their safe space and those that don't can discuss whatever they want without being shouted down. Seems like the optimal…

The thing about no moderation spaces (above and beyond legal requirements) is that they become tools of organized trolling efforts (harassment campaigns and the like). Having an unmoderated space on the internet is basically the social equivalent of having an open smtp relay. But if this "ignore flags" version of hackernews were to have any moderation at all to prevent the above, it would basically mean forcing extra…

So limit contributions to active valid accounts (minimum membership time / minimum karma level etc), again from a software point of view that's beyond simple. Whether it's the right thing or not for HN is another matter.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#33

Post by forthefuture »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
forthefuture wrote: post #13

The flagging isn't a rogue algorithm. It's the majority of the sites users saying they don't want to keep seeing the same two toxic viewpoints throwing shit at each other.

If that were the only way it was used it would be fine. But it is also used to simply shut down rational discussion on subjects the flaggers don't like.

I use hckrnews myself and don't see this happening. Would you mind identifying which threads you think have been incorrectly flagged?

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#34

Post by as1mov »

venning wrote: post #20

To create an intentional false dichotomy: if I have to choose between a site that surfaces all content regardless of controversy but accepts that related discussions will be lower-quality, and a site that directly or indirectly suppresses some content to maintain higher-quality discussion overall, I will choose the latter. I appreciate that some people feel that the "loss" of some submissions due to automatic flamewa…

Most of the recently flagged submissions were related to the diversity memo. I don't mind if fluff articles from dailydot are removed. But then when a verbatim copy of the memo was posted, and even that was flagged. I highly doubt that was flagged because it would have low quality discussions. People just abuse the flagging system to hide content that they don't agree with.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#35

Post by jacquesm »

forthefuture wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were the only way it was used it would be fine. But it is also used to simply shut down rational discussion on subjects the flaggers don't like.

I use hckrnews myself and don't see this happening. Would you mind identifying which threads you think have been incorrectly flagged?

In the last 24 hours you'll find plenty of those about the Google affair, most likely shut down by Googlers flagging those links to shut down any discussion. Hard to tell without knowing who the flaggers are, which is one reason I don't like flagging.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#36

Post by jacquesm »

DanBC wrote: post #29
jacquesm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is rule breaking about it?

Come off it, you've been here long enough to know that it's an editorialised title.

Ah in that sense. Oh golly, you're right. Well best we don't discuss that then, who knows what kind of subversive stuff might be said.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#37

Post by venning »

as1mov wrote: post #34
venning wrote: post #20

To create an intentional false dichotomy: if I have to choose between a site that surfaces all content regardless of controversy but accepts that related discussions will be lower-quality, and a site that directly or indirectly suppresses some content to maintain higher-quality discussion overall, I will choose the latter. I appreciate that some people feel that the "loss" of some submissions due to automatic flamewa…

Most of the recently flagged submissions were related to the diversity memo. I don't mind if fluff articles from dailydot are removed. But then when a verbatim copy of the memo was posted, and even that was flagged. I highly doubt that was flagged because it would have low quality discussions. People just abuse the flagging system to hide content that they don't agree with.

I also doubt that it was flagged because it would generate low-quality discussion. But I do not doubt that low-quality discussion would have followed had it not been flagged off the front page.

I see flags, especially when they are abused, as indicators that having a high-quality discussion is going to be next to impossible. If people are going to use one tool (flags) poorly, it's likely they will use a more powerful tool (comments) poorly.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#38

Post by wvl »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
forthefuture wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use hckrnews myself and don't see this happening. Would you mind identifying which threads you think have been incorrectly flagged?

In the last 24 hours you'll find plenty of those about the Google affair, most likely shut down by Googlers flagging those links to shut down any discussion. Hard to tell without knowing who the flaggers are, which is one reason I don't like flagging.

I find the chronological history of hckrnews.com adds context to why many things get flagged. For example, immediately after the bloomberg article was posted about Google firing the memo author, were several other articles with the same content (from arstechnica and nymag) which were immediately flagged. Any time an inflammatory subject gets beat to death, the same process happens.

So in that respect, I often agree with the submissions that get flagged (including this one), but I do think news.ycombinator.com could do a better job of collecting and displaying these flagged submissions. For example, duplicate submissions could be made children of the submission that was allowed to stay.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#39

Post by venning »

john_moscow wrote: post #23
md224 wrote: post #4

I'd love to get a discussion going on whether people support or oppose the flagging (and subsequent disappearance) of politically charged topics on HN. While HN is not a politics site, some of these censored topics have been tech-related. I guess it comes down to a value judgement: is it worth discussing tech politics even if it spawns flamewars and heated arguments? I think it's worth it, but this is certainly debat…

Maybe just add a special topic flag "politics" and let everyone have a convenient switch in the profile settings whether they want to see those topics in the feed or not?

I, for one, don't like the idea of readers having the ability to narrow what they read here. Part of what I value about HN is that it forces me to see what the community values. It's why I dislike Facebook's and Google's news feeds so much. I can control what I see there, either directly with settings or indirectly by liking topics.

I would rather not be trapped in an echo chamber, even if it is one of my own making (especially if it is one of my own making).

Note, "dead" comments are usually dead for reasons that have nothing to do with the same controversies. Turning off "dead" comments is, at least to me, a very different thing than turning off political submissions.

Re: Hcrknews.com (Flagged / Censored content can be seen)

#40

Post by DanielBMarkham »

forthefuture wrote: post #26
john_moscow wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe just add a special topic flag "politics" and let everyone have a convenient switch in the profile settings whether they want to see those topics in the feed or not?

That topic flag is called reddit.com/r/politics. We are already choosing to come here instead of there.

I have always bowed to the wishes of PG and the mods when it comes to calling out articles as too "hot"

This is a funky one, though. The issue itself is about how politics affects what we can say and not say online. In that way, it's a "meta" issue.

I can still understand the flagging and death, but damn. Google, Apple, and Facebook are huge monsters that control hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and virtually everything a huge chunk of the world's population sees and does. This is a tech story. It's a politics story. It's a story about business. It's all of that.

This is the first time I've felt the tech community actively sticking their head in the sand. For ten or twenty years, we've created the internet and all the things people use today. When asked about morals, ethics, and politics, we've just said something like "We make the tools. We're not responsible for their use"

And here we are in a security and surveillance state that we've created. We're refusing to even talk about Google's desired monoculture because we're unable to maintain civil discourse.

I get it. But fuck me. Something's really wrong here. I can't help but feel that the tech community at large -- and HN in particular -- is no longer working towards the betterment of mankind.

Something is terribly broken. And we had a big part in breaking it.

Post reply on HN