4 ms·

HN censoring is terrifyingly rampant, dang is an extremely egotistic, and objectively biased moderator. I don't disagree that HN is capable of producing interes

HN censoring is terrifyingly rampant, dang is an extremely egotistic, and objectively biased moderator. I don't disagree that HN is capable of producing interesting conversations, but it's a very limited window imo. HN suffers greatly from one of the major problems that plagues Reddit, and that's the hivemind effect that threads seem to have. I was a great fan of Slashdot because it was possible to see multiple threads with different opinions from a parent topic, but on HN, whatever the hivemind agrees with floats the top and the rest sinks like a rock. That people think HN is even close to a balanced platform is somewhat concerning.

throwawaymaroon 10y ago
I wouldn't describe myself as a dang fan, but egotistic? Sure, he's just a low-ranking enforcer used to shield YC from criticism, but he's just doing his job. It's not exactly his fault, as a pawn, if the overall system is poisoned. But as to the rest of it, yeah, the HN hivemind is insane in exactly the same way Startup Culture is a sick, greedy mess.
dsacco 10y ago
>> HN censoring is terrifyingly rampant, dang is an extremely egotistic, and objectively biased moderator. Sigh...alright, I'll bite. Can you give a concrete example of HN censoring in effect?
- said 10y ago
  I don't have any concrete examples, so this answer likely won't satisfy you. Also, I must mention that dang has been significantly more fair the past year or so. It's been a long while since I've really noticed any of the issues I'm about to list. From least to most concerning: 1. A couple of years ago, dang would regularly wade into gender arguments. And he'd apologize publicly and profusely to women who had unspecific complaints about Hacker News making them feel "unsafe", assuring those women that he felt their pain and would fix the problem. 2. Rules about tone were enforced unevenly. (Again, to be clear, they're now enforced far more fairly.) Cruel, over-the-top, mean-spirited, Shanley-style [1] derogatory posts from feminist activists would routinely be allowed to stand. People would respond asking why this tone was being allowed on HN, and others would respond with "it's oppressive to tone-police women in tech". Despite all the attention drawn to these posts, they would not be moderated. At the same time, the slightest acerbic replies against feminist activism were either "deaded" or publicly admonished by dang. 3. This last point is the most difficult to prove, but regular lurkers will know exactly what I'm talking about. Flags were enforced unevenly—they were used as an excuse to minimize community exposure to posts that disagreed with dang's politics. When a controversial submission that ran counter to the feminist narrative quickly disappeared off the front page despite hundreds of comments, people would complain in the thread (because where else would they complain?). He'd respond, "Hey, this submission received a lot of flags. This wasn't my decision. I'm not closing this thread, so you can continue discussion. But I'm listening to the community by taking it off the front page." However, controversial submissions that promoted the feminist narrative would often stay up for hours. Those posts undoubtably received tons of flags, too. When people would complain, dang would explain that he would disregard flags for controversial posts if they generated important conversations. [1]: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/10/the-madness-of-queen-shanley/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/10/the-madness-of-qu...
- gedrap 10y ago
  One of the cases was banning of michaelochurch ( https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/ https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/ ), who was heavily criticizing YC, Paul Graham, and VCs in general and was relatively popular, banned for swearing or something like that. While many of his posts are extremely negative, some of them have ideas worth considering.
- unlinker 10y ago
  If you say something that could be labelled as conservative (something racist, or something about family values vs. homosexuality, or mentioning men and women are not equal in some way, etc) your comment will be killed by dang himself, and he'll say you're being inflammatory. It's funny how this creates an echo chamber where nobody in real life is racist, or where you believe yourself that something remotely racist is wrong.
  - jklinger410 10y ago
    being insensitive is now being conflated with being racist/sexist etc etc
CaptSpify 10y ago
The difference though, is that HN clearly does not claim to be an uncensored free for all. HN has a very strong focus, and strong rules. They want a very limited window, and that's not a bad thing. I think that will help them stick around for a long time. But that makes reddit and HN an apples to oranges comparison. They aren't even trying to be the same thing. My personal concern, is that there is no reddit replacement that has a broad focus. All of the alternatives seem to be racist shit-holes, or fluffy, clearly manufactured facebook-feed alternatives.

throwawaymaroon 10y ago

I wouldn't describe myself as a dang fan, but egotistic? Sure, he's just a low-ranking enforcer used to shield YC from criticism, but he's just doing his job. It's not exactly his fault, as a pawn, if the overall system is poisoned. But as to the rest of it, yeah, the HN hivemind is insane in exactly the same way Startup Culture is a sick, greedy mess.

dsacco 10y ago

>> HN censoring is terrifyingly rampant, dang is an extremely egotistic, and objectively biased moderator. Sigh...alright, I'll bite. Can you give a concrete example of HN censoring in effect?

said 10y ago
I don't have any concrete examples, so this answer likely won't satisfy you. Also, I must mention that dang has been significantly more fair the past year or so. It's been a long while since I've really noticed any of the issues I'm about to list. From least to most concerning: 1. A couple of years ago, dang would regularly wade into gender arguments. And he'd apologize publicly and profusely to women who had unspecific complaints about Hacker News making them feel "unsafe", assuring those women that he felt their pain and would fix the problem. 2. Rules about tone were enforced unevenly. (Again, to be clear, they're now enforced far more fairly.) Cruel, over-the-top, mean-spirited, Shanley-style [1] derogatory posts from feminist activists would routinely be allowed to stand. People would respond asking why this tone was being allowed on HN, and others would respond with "it's oppressive to tone-police women in tech". Despite all the attention drawn to these posts, they would not be moderated. At the same time, the slightest acerbic replies against feminist activism were either "deaded" or publicly admonished by dang. 3. This last point is the most difficult to prove, but regular lurkers will know exactly what I'm talking about. Flags were enforced unevenly—they were used as an excuse to minimize community exposure to posts that disagreed with dang's politics. When a controversial submission that ran counter to the feminist narrative quickly disappeared off the front page despite hundreds of comments, people would complain in the thread (because where else would they complain?). He'd respond, "Hey, this submission received a lot of flags. This wasn't my decision. I'm not closing this thread, so you can continue discussion. But I'm listening to the community by taking it off the front page." However, controversial submissions that promoted the feminist narrative would often stay up for hours. Those posts undoubtably received tons of flags, too. When people would complain, dang would explain that he would disregard flags for controversial posts if they generated important conversations. [1]: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/10/the-madness-of-queen-shanley/ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/10/the-madness-of-qu...
gedrap 10y ago
One of the cases was banning of michaelochurch ( https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/ https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/ ), who was heavily criticizing YC, Paul Graham, and VCs in general and was relatively popular, banned for swearing or something like that. While many of his posts are extremely negative, some of them have ideas worth considering.
unlinker 10y ago
If you say something that could be labelled as conservative (something racist, or something about family values vs. homosexuality, or mentioning men and women are not equal in some way, etc) your comment will be killed by dang himself, and he'll say you're being inflammatory. It's funny how this creates an echo chamber where nobody in real life is racist, or where you believe yourself that something remotely racist is wrong.
- jklinger410 10y ago
  being insensitive is now being conflated with being racist/sexist etc etc

CaptSpify 10y ago

The difference though, is that HN clearly does not claim to be an uncensored free for all. HN has a very strong focus, and strong rules. They want a very limited window, and that's not a bad thing. I think that will help them stick around for a long time. But that makes reddit and HN an apples to oranges comparison. They aren't even trying to be the same thing. My personal concern, is that there is no reddit replacement that has a broad focus. All of the alternatives seem to be racist shit-holes, or fluffy, clearly manufactured facebook-feed alternatives.