5 ms·

That's great. But those of us who don't agree feel as though our opinions are being squelched by those who are in control of the system (ironic, no?). Conside

That's great. But those of us who don't agree feel as though our opinions are being squelched by those who are in control of the system (ironic, no?). Consider that before you enforce your policies and potentially alienate a large part of your community.

dang 11y ago
"Those who are in control of the system" in this case are simply your fellow users. The community is often in disagreement about what should be on the front page. To the extent that we intervene as moderators, it's often to try to balance the competing concerns. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to do that perfectly.
- davesque 11y ago
  I'm fully aware of that. However, partly since it's impossible to quantify the number of users who wish to avoid so-called duplicate posts, it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion. At the end of the day, if Paul Graham's opinion gets a chance at prime blog real estate, shouldn't people who disagree with him get the same chance?
  - dang 11y ago
    > it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion It certainly is easy, but it's an uncharitable interpretation. We're moderating this thread less, not more, than we normally would. One asymmetry here is that you're upset about a specific case, but we have to moderate HN in general. If you can come up with a viable set of general principles that would make HN significantly better, I'd like to know what they are. I personally have found it to be a hard problem. A second asymmetry is that the cases where you dislike HN moderation stand out far more than the cases you agree with. (I mean "you" the reader, not you personally.) The latter simply blend into the status quo. Such perceptions are prone to bias, which is one reason it's easy to be uncharitable.
    - Estragon 11y ago
      > If you can come up with a viable set of general principles > that would make HN significantly better, I'd like to know > what they are. I personally have found it to be a hard > problem. How much transparency is there into the decision-making process? It would be great to see the measurements you're making to come to the conclusion that "Some users would like to see two heated discussions about income inequality on the front page, but I can assure you that many others would not."
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

dang 11y ago

"Those who are in control of the system" in this case are simply your fellow users. The community is often in disagreement about what should be on the front page. To the extent that we intervene as moderators, it's often to try to balance the competing concerns. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to do that perfectly.

davesque 11y ago
I'm fully aware of that. However, partly since it's impossible to quantify the number of users who wish to avoid so-called duplicate posts, it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion. At the end of the day, if Paul Graham's opinion gets a chance at prime blog real estate, shouldn't people who disagree with him get the same chance?
- dang 11y ago
  > it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion It certainly is easy, but it's an uncharitable interpretation. We're moderating this thread less, not more, than we normally would. One asymmetry here is that you're upset about a specific case, but we have to moderate HN in general. If you can come up with a viable set of general principles that would make HN significantly better, I'd like to know what they are. I personally have found it to be a hard problem. A second asymmetry is that the cases where you dislike HN moderation stand out far more than the cases you agree with. (I mean "you" the reader, not you personally.) The latter simply blend into the status quo. Such perceptions are prone to bias, which is one reason it's easy to be uncharitable.
  - Estragon 11y ago
    > If you can come up with a viable set of general principles > that would make HN significantly better, I'd like to know > what they are. I personally have found it to be a hard > problem. How much transparency is there into the decision-making process? It would be great to see the measurements you're making to come to the conclusion that "Some users would like to see two heated discussions about income inequality on the front page, but I can assure you that many others would not."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]