5 ms·

I disagree. I have sometimes faced reply comments that are quite unreasonable and at times meant solely as insult. It's very rare here, but still a risk. But w

by p4wnc6 11y ago

I disagree. I have sometimes faced reply comments that are quite unreasonable and at times meant solely as insult. It's very rare here, but still a risk. But what's far worse is that the moderation of Hacker News functions with very little transparency. Even just Googling for the moderator `dang` turns up a lot of angry rants on other blogs and in other sections of the internet, full of people who feel wronged by black-box and one-sided moderation. It can be quite psychologically upsetting to post a comment, fall victim to group-think downvoting, try to add clarity or try to defend yourself against unreasonable comments, and then find yourself on the non-negotiable end of a black-box moderation action. If it was just meaningless karma downvotes, few would care. It's the actually hurtful responses and, there's no other way to put it, mean-spirited moderation activity that give pause. And I'm speaking as someone with a lot of anti-authoritarian tendencies. I'm not shy at all about speaking my mind and I struggle with finding a way to feign respect for authority apparatuses that are not legitimate, like HN moderation. If I feel this apprehension and backlash, I can only imagine that more timid readers feel it to a much more damaging degree.

dhimes 11y ago
I had no idea this kind of thing happened. I've never seen it (and known what I was looking at anyway). I have, however, looked at some hellbanned accounts to see what caused the hellbanning and sometimes it's not apparent- that is, replies that aren't particularly insulting or vapid or anything obviously antisocial. I figured they were banned for some other reason- like sneaking advertisements in or something (that are now removed).
- DanBC 11y ago
  Sometimes accounts get caught in an accidental hellban. In that case (if you've gone through the history and can't find anything obvious) you might want to email dang to let him know, or email the person to let them know. Or you could vouch for the person's posts. I think enough vouching would mean the account becomes unbanned? (Of course, this is just my opinion. I have no idea if it's true.)
- tomjen3 11y ago
  Another account of mine was hellbanned for triggering some automated response based on voting patterns - which were very suspicious, but had a legitimate reason (specifically I downvoted comments that were of topic, which was most if not all the comments in that thread).
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    It would be nice if HN had some way to say, "this whole sub-thread together tanks the SNR". Sometimes a thread will go wildly off topic, but there are so many replies off the topic that more interesting on-topic points can't be raised above the noise. Sometimes I wonder if this could be a deliberate astroturfing strategy. One recent example was a useless conversation about whether the US was a democracy or a republic, with 10 different people saying the same thing. Those 10 comments with replies fill several scrolling pages, so the real topic of conversation is buried.
    - p4wnc6 11y ago
      On the other hand, you could argue that if a comment generates substantive replies (as opposed to just replies that say "this is off topic") then it's actually pretty strong evidence that the community feels the comment is on topic. In fact, I think it would be a good thing if it was made impossible for moderators to detach comments that receive enough up-votes, or have child comments (especially comments that disagree) with many up-votes. In those cases, it's clear that community members get value from the comment, which should infinitely override bespoke opinions of whether it's "on topic enough" to remain -- those subjective opinions ought to count for way less than simply observing whether there are up votes or replies.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        It only takes about ten redundant comments (wild guess number) to derail a thread for thousands of would-be participants. This doesn't indicate community value; at best it indicates accidental nerd sniping, and at worst could be a coordinated attack on what would otherwise be a productive discussion, from which more people could derive far greater value.
- kstenerud 11y ago
  Posts don't get removed, even if they're ads. Do a perusal of hellbanned accounts and you'll find about 20% of them didn't deserve to be. In fact, a large chunk of that 20% continue posting, blissfully unaware that they've been hellbanned.
- FD3SA 11y ago
  You must be new here. Try mentioning anything to do with sexual dimorphism and/or genetics. You'll be banned within the hour, most likely by 'dang' himself. I've apparently skirted the line quite a few times myself, but I'm definitely under a few rate restrictions and/or shadowbans. It's comical how closely the HN community adheres to the stereotypical programmer trope. Zero knowledge of anything outside a very narrow scope, no life experience or perspective with the empirical sciences, viciously dictatorial with any power, etc... I visit this place out of habit more than anything else. There are a few smart guys here and there, but mostly very confused and undeveloped human beings with a very narrow experience of life. Oh well, that's humanity in a nutshell I guess.
mattlutze 11y ago
> And I'm speaking as someone with a lot of anti-authoritarian tendencies. I'm not shy at all about speaking my mind and I struggle with finding a way to feign respect for authority apparatuses that are not legitimate, like HN moderation. If I feel this apprehension and backlash, I can only imagine that more timid readers feel it to a much more damaging degree. (I'm preemptively sorry if I end up delving into the realm of armchair psychology here) Is it possible that, if you know you tend to look for authoritarian themes in the artifacts you interact with, that maybe part of your perception is the result of false positives magnified by the emotional impact of the administrative action? There's always some subjective elements to imposing community rules as a moderator -- that's common in every community, ever. What would be less expected is malice in those actions.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  I would agree if it was just me. But Googling around for some of the stuff that's happened, like with Michael O. Church, some blog posts about alleged anti-semitism in HN moderator actions, I think it's hardly just me. I also don't think that bad moderator actions are common either. Most users probably don't even notice it. It's arguable that this makes it even worse, since it's harder to get the community to care about healthy community-approved policies if they are only protecting a handful of people who are sometimes outside of the HN group-think.

by p4wnc6 11y ago

dhimes 11y ago

I had no idea this kind of thing happened. I've never seen it (and known what I was looking at anyway). I have, however, looked at some hellbanned accounts to see what caused the hellbanning and sometimes it's not apparent- that is, replies that aren't particularly insulting or vapid or anything obviously antisocial. I figured they were banned for some other reason- like sneaking advertisements in or something (that are now removed).

DanBC 11y ago
Sometimes accounts get caught in an accidental hellban. In that case (if you've gone through the history and can't find anything obvious) you might want to email dang to let him know, or email the person to let them know. Or you could vouch for the person's posts. I think enough vouching would mean the account becomes unbanned? (Of course, this is just my opinion. I have no idea if it's true.)
tomjen3 11y ago
Another account of mine was hellbanned for triggering some automated response based on voting patterns - which were very suspicious, but had a legitimate reason (specifically I downvoted comments that were of topic, which was most if not all the comments in that thread).
- nitrogen 11y ago
  It would be nice if HN had some way to say, "this whole sub-thread together tanks the SNR". Sometimes a thread will go wildly off topic, but there are so many replies off the topic that more interesting on-topic points can't be raised above the noise. Sometimes I wonder if this could be a deliberate astroturfing strategy. One recent example was a useless conversation about whether the US was a democracy or a republic, with 10 different people saying the same thing. Those 10 comments with replies fill several scrolling pages, so the real topic of conversation is buried.
  - p4wnc6 11y ago
    On the other hand, you could argue that if a comment generates substantive replies (as opposed to just replies that say "this is off topic") then it's actually pretty strong evidence that the community feels the comment is on topic. In fact, I think it would be a good thing if it was made impossible for moderators to detach comments that receive enough up-votes, or have child comments (especially comments that disagree) with many up-votes. In those cases, it's clear that community members get value from the comment, which should infinitely override bespoke opinions of whether it's "on topic enough" to remain -- those subjective opinions ought to count for way less than simply observing whether there are up votes or replies.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      It only takes about ten redundant comments (wild guess number) to derail a thread for thousands of would-be participants. This doesn't indicate community value; at best it indicates accidental nerd sniping, and at worst could be a coordinated attack on what would otherwise be a productive discussion, from which more people could derive far greater value.
kstenerud 11y ago
Posts don't get removed, even if they're ads. Do a perusal of hellbanned accounts and you'll find about 20% of them didn't deserve to be. In fact, a large chunk of that 20% continue posting, blissfully unaware that they've been hellbanned.
FD3SA 11y ago
You must be new here. Try mentioning anything to do with sexual dimorphism and/or genetics. You'll be banned within the hour, most likely by 'dang' himself. I've apparently skirted the line quite a few times myself, but I'm definitely under a few rate restrictions and/or shadowbans. It's comical how closely the HN community adheres to the stereotypical programmer trope. Zero knowledge of anything outside a very narrow scope, no life experience or perspective with the empirical sciences, viciously dictatorial with any power, etc... I visit this place out of habit more than anything else. There are a few smart guys here and there, but mostly very confused and undeveloped human beings with a very narrow experience of life. Oh well, that's humanity in a nutshell I guess.

mattlutze 11y ago

> And I'm speaking as someone with a lot of anti-authoritarian tendencies. I'm not shy at all about speaking my mind and I struggle with finding a way to feign respect for authority apparatuses that are not legitimate, like HN moderation. If I feel this apprehension and backlash, I can only imagine that more timid readers feel it to a much more damaging degree. (I'm preemptively sorry if I end up delving into the realm of armchair psychology here) Is it possible that, if you know you tend to look for authoritarian themes in the artifacts you interact with, that maybe part of your perception is the result of false positives magnified by the emotional impact of the administrative action? There's always some subjective elements to imposing community rules as a moderator -- that's common in every community, ever. What would be less expected is malice in those actions.

p4wnc6 11y ago
I would agree if it was just me. But Googling around for some of the stuff that's happened, like with Michael O. Church, some blog posts about alleged anti-semitism in HN moderator actions, I think it's hardly just me. I also don't think that bad moderator actions are common either. Most users probably don't even notice it. It's arguable that this makes it even worse, since it's harder to get the community to care about healthy community-approved policies if they are only protecting a handful of people who are sometimes outside of the HN group-think.