Live data from Hacker News

The Chinese media model

china-underground.com

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: The Chinese media model

#41
post #36

Moderators: Why was this submission removed from the front page as soon as it started to gain traction? The risk of nationalistic flame wars needs to be weighed against important discussion potential. But the submission is interesting enough even if the comments are disabled. Is there any statistics on changes to Hacker News censorship since Sam Altman's China strategy was announced?

Stories gaining traction in the form of comments affects the ranking negatively if it's not upvoted at the same tame. It indicates that people are more interested in voicing their opinion than whatever the submission had to say. If you disagree with that reasoning and want to see lively discussions anyway, you should probably browse https://news.ycombinator.com/active instead of or in addition to the traditional fron…

Was the removal from the front page algorithmic or a manual step by moderators?

The lack of transparency with the soft censorship is alarming, particularly given YC's financial conflict of interest.

Re: The Chinese media model

#42
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stories gaining traction in the form of comments affects the ranking negatively if it's not upvoted at the same tame. It indicates that people are more interested in voicing their opinion than whatever the submission had to say. If you disagree with that reasoning and want to see lively discussions anyway, you should probably browse https://news.ycombinator.com/active instead of or in addition to the traditional fron…

Was the removal from the front page algorithmic or a manual step by moderators? The lack of transparency with the soft censorship is alarming, particularly given YC's financial conflict of interest.

Since the article title is different now, I assume a moderator looked at it at some point. IIRC, they check all instances of the flame war detector firing, to prevent false positives. In this case, they probably didn't find the comments salvageable.

On the other hand, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19493033 is currently on the front page after previously disappearing, so the mods seem to have intervened in that case.

Re: The Chinese media model

#43
post #2

I'm always amused by the indignation expressed by people when some nation other than their own is shown to be using their resources to to exert international influence. The British Empire did. The USSR did. The United States does. Of course China does too.

[flagged]

This comment breaks the site guideline against insinuations of astroturfing. Please don't do that on HN. Also, please don't take HN threads further into flamewar generally, and nationalistic flamewar particularly.

On the astroturfing point, anyone who wants more explanation can find reams of it here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... In particular, here's a recent detailed explanation:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19485935

And here's a recent thread which clearly demonstrates why we have this rule:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19401961

Finally, please don't use the tired trope of "whataboutism" on HN. Clichés like that contain no information, and this one is merely a rhetorical device to exclude something the speaker dislikes. If somebody brings up a point which you don't think is relevant, explain why in specific terms, not by calling generic names.

Re: The Chinese media model

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

To be clear, the Confucius Institute is aimed at teaching students in its hosted nation certain propaganda. Products of the domestic China censored education system also use a lot of whataboutism. The bigger problem is the fact this submission was censored from the front page as soon as it started to gain traction. Sam Altman's China strategy would appear to include censorship of Hacker News.

The submission was flagged by users. Moderators downweighted it the way we downweight all sensationalist flamewar articles (if we didn't, they would always be all the top stories on HN). But it is the user flags that buried it.

Articles and sites like this one are off topic for Hacker News. We're looking for articles that gratify intellectual curiosity, not ones that gin up flamewars, let alone nationalistic flamewars. Submissions to Hacker News need to be much, much more substantive than this—most of all on divisive topics.

This is obviously a single-agenda, highly politicized site; we ban all of those, regardless of their politics. We also ban accounts that only use HN to promote their own site (https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=subsonico). Indeed, on second look, it's clear that this account and this site have simply been spamming HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18381256, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17834767. We should have caught that a long time ago. (Edit: and even the current article turns out to be blogspam from another source.)

We don't moderate stories about China differently than any others. HN moderation standards are consistent to the point of tedium. There is inconsistency in practice, but only because of the quantity of material that appears here—way more than we could ever hope to read or even see.

Users with strong opinions are quick to convince themselves that they see bias, because the stronger your feelings on a topic, and especially the more you dislike something, the more this affects what you notice. Plenty of stories critical of things in China spend plenty of time on HN's front page (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19493033 has spent most of today on the front page). If you've noticed those at all, I'm sure they didn't attract as much of your attention as this one getting flagged. Readers with opposite views to yours feel equally certain that HN is heavily biased against China—and frankly, based on the stories that appear here, they have a better case for their claim than you do.

"Sam Altman's China strategy", whatever that is, has nothing to do with HN. Our sole "strategy" is to maintain an internet message board that doesn't choke to death on its fumes while burning to death from its flames. That is already a feeble enough hope that we have no bandwidth for anything else.

Edit: having just taken a look at your comment history, I'm dismayed to see that this account has also have been using HN exclusively for nationalistic and political battle. As I'm sure you know, this is not allowed on HN and we ban accounts that do it. Worse, you appear to have done it numerous times before. When people create accounts to break HN's guidelines like that, we eventually ban their main account as well. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.

Re: The Chinese media model

#45

Moderators: Why was this submission removed from the front page as soon as it started to gain traction? The risk of nationalistic flame wars needs to be weighed against important discussion potential. But the submission is interesting enough even if the comments are disabled. Is there any statistics on changes to Hacker News censorship since Sam Altman's China strategy was announced?

You posted three of these. Would you please not overdo it like that?

I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19496933.

Re: The Chinese media model

#46
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This comment breaks the site guideline against insinuations of astroturfing. Please don't do that on HN. Also, please don't take HN threads further into flamewar generally, and nationalistic flamewar particularly. On the astroturfing point, anyone who wants more explanation can find reams of it here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... . In particular, here's a recent detailed explanation:…

I explicitly did not insinuate astroturfing. What are you smoking?

Re: The Chinese media model

#47
post #2

I'm always amused by the indignation expressed by people when some nation other than their own is shown to be using their resources to to exert international influence. The British Empire did. The USSR did. The United States does. Of course China does too.

I can't even begin to relate to this point of view. Why does everything have to be side-taking, where nobody is allowed to be accused of anything if somebody else, now or in the past, has committed even just the same genre of crime? And why the smug "amused" line? To me, it's all terribly demoralizing.

I don't understand how "this is how all powerful nations operate" is "taking sides". I thought it was quite the opposite.

I am absolutely not saying that China (or anyone else) can't be accused of propaganda (I mean, I'm pretty sure it's literally in their government playbook after all), just that it's funny (can I say 'funny' instead of 'amused' or am I not allowed to derive entertainment in any form?) when people from a country with a strong history of international propaganda get all upset and act like it's unfair when another country does it.

It'd be much more appropriate to just say "hey, looks like the Chinese propaganda machine is producing X at the moment, think twice if you read this kind of article / see this kind of endorsement / etc."

Re: The Chinese media model

#48
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment breaks the site guideline against insinuations of astroturfing. Please don't do that on HN. Also, please don't take HN threads further into flamewar generally, and nationalistic flamewar particularly. On the astroturfing point, anyone who wants more explanation can find reams of it here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... . In particular, here's a recent detailed explanation:…

I explicitly did not insinuate astroturfing. What are you smoking?

You said "agents", which is much the same thing. The whole comment was the sort of insinuation we're asking users not to do here.

I tried to explain this in the other comments I linked to. If you look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19485935 in particular, this should be clear.

Re: The Chinese media model

#49
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, the Confucius Institute is aimed at teaching students in its hosted nation certain propaganda. Products of the domestic China censored education system also use a lot of whataboutism. The bigger problem is the fact this submission was censored from the front page as soon as it started to gain traction. Sam Altman's China strategy would appear to include censorship of Hacker News.

The submission was flagged by users. Moderators downweighted it the way we downweight all sensationalist flamewar articles (if we didn't, they would always be all the top stories on HN). But it is the user flags that buried it. Articles and sites like this one are off topic for Hacker News. We're looking for articles that gratify intellectual curiosity, not ones that gin up flamewars, let alone nationalistic flamewar…

Thank you for your responses. Unfortunately I'm not as comfortable using my primary account for responses here, so I will abstain from discussions of a political nature.

Re: The Chinese media model

#50
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I explicitly did not insinuate astroturfing. What are you smoking?

You said "agents", which is much the same thing. The whole comment was the sort of insinuation we're asking users not to do here. I tried to explain this in the other comments I linked to. If you look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19485935 in particular, this should be clear.

I literally said "I'm not accusing parent of being related".

That is orthogonal to Confucius Institute agents being trained to use the same tactic that happened to be the most upvoted comment.

I didn't insinuate parent is astroturfing or an 'agent'. I just pointed out that parent is repeating the same mindset that China wants to be repeated, it is literally in Xi's strategy outline. I am sure parent wholeheartedly holds that view and is not a shill or anything of the sort.

But at least I see where the misunderstanding came from.

Post reply on HN