7 ms·

Re HN: also anything that can be coerced into a political discussion will devolve quickly. Conservative views typically wind up grayed, even when they are subst

Re HN: also anything that can be coerced into a political discussion will devolve quickly. Conservative views typically wind up grayed, even when they are substantive arguments.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
This is because it is de facto HN policy to be OK with downvoting to register disagreement. pg put that one down and it hasn't changed.
- bradleyankrom 10y ago
  I've noticed flagging being used similarly, too. The argument that downvoting should be used to register disagreement falls apart when you consider that only users with enough (>= 500, I think?) karma have disagreement privileges.
  - lake99 10y ago
    I think the 500 limit is justified as a means to discourage vote-brigading. Age of the account, by itself, is not a good enough indicator, because a person might create hundreds of accounts to be used for brigading at a later date. But, yes, both downvoting and flagging can and have been abused here, despite measures to prevent them.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Flagging is extremely effective in taking content off the front page. I understand the intention, to quickly kill spam and avoid flame war topics, but it's extremely powerful in even preventing discussion on issues and it is probably a greater contribution to groupthink than downvoting comments is. Agenda setting, controlling which topics are discussed at all, is way more powerful than controlling the range of views expressed on those topics.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      I think you can "vouch" for posts and submissions now to counter the flagging. Of course, that assumes you will catch them before they fall off the front page or get auto-deleted.
    - bradleyankrom 10y ago
      I was referring to comment flagging, for which there appears to be no recourse (at least from my 140something-karma account's view). Similar problem(?), though.
vertex-four 10y ago
Right-libertarian views are generally most popular here - both "conservative" and "liberal" (American definitions of both) views are generally not popular. And god forbid you have views that would be considered slightly left of center in much of the EU.
- hsod 10y ago
  I think this is pretty true for economic issues, but not for diversity/identity politics/social justice. On those issues, the HN-hivemind is pretty solidly leftist (though not to the extremes of some corners of the web).
  - mintplant 10y ago
    Wait, what? Really? I would point to the comments on just about any "women in tech" story as a counterexample.
    - james-watson 10y ago
      I have had previous accounts banned for stating the following: "Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species of primates, in which the Y chromosome results in differential physiological development between males and females." So yes, HN is quite a hivemind when it comes to gender/identity politics. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment.
      - PieterH 10y ago
        HN is overall polite and mature, especially compared to Reddit. Yet it can't escape its background culture. Some truths will always be taboo.
      - nkurz 10y ago
        Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left out some essential detail. My guess would be that you made that statement, and subsequently you were banned for something else. Perhaps you could post a link to the thread in question? Never mind, maybe I found it, or at least the account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872. A little bristly, and I'm not sure if the assumptions are correct (Is it unequivocal that "Status is zero sum"?) but doesn't seem ban-worthy. But since it's a year before the account appears banned, maybe I'm missing a later comment with the exact quote? Presuming this is the account you are referring to, it looks to have actually been banned for the similarly themed but much more aggressive comment "Sexual dimorphism is real. Your impotent rage and ridiculous ideologies will never change that fact. I will be greatly amused by your kind's zealous need to tilt at windmills." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294), which when challenged by Dan you defended by saying "I have a policy to return hostility in kind." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788). I think this counts as leaving out an essential detail. The problem is not that discussing sexually dimorphism is off limits (others appear to have done so without being banned) but that taking "he did it first" is not a acceptable excuse for rude behavior here. Or maybe I have the timeline slightly off? It's hard to tell when some of the edits occurred. In any case, I'm going to keep my rose colored glasses on for a bit longer. I'd encourage you to keep making scientifically accurate statements about sexual dimorphism from your new account, but given that some interpretations have sensitive implications, it would probably be wise to approach it as politely as possible. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment. No, I don't think you will. You can actually discuss many "controversial" topics here as long as you try to do so politely. Assuming I found the right thread, it looks like the ban wasn't because you raised a forbidden topic, but for your stated policy of returning hostility in kind. "Tit for tat" has it's place in game theory, but in real games (and communities) it has some serious defects if blindly applied. The main defect in this context is that if all players adhere to the simplest version, it has a tendency to end in a "death spiral" of defection. Eventually, a poorly phrased response is interpreted as an insult, and after that it's a permanent race to the bottom. The strategy can be improved by adding some degree of "forgiveness" to allow both parties to reset to cooperation. Adjusting the trigger to require multiple offenses before retaliation ("tit for two tats") can also help to account for inevitable communication errors. Welcome back.
yodsanklai 10y ago
> Conservative views typically wind up grayed, even when they are substantive arguments. Not sure about that, could you find one such comment? Many people would upvote any greyed comment that comes with substantive arguments, regardless of their political view.
pvdebbe 10y ago
To me, HN's "bias" is not so much about left/right, but rather the individualism/collectivism aspect of things. "Regulation is a good tool to weed out the bad stuff; free market can't solve this or that; ban human drivers when self-driving vehicles mature; taxes as means of control" and so on. We agree to disagree on many cases very maturely but very often I see just discussion that would warrant to rename this site to "Collectivist news".

Re HN: also anything that can be coerced into a political discussion will devolve quickly. Conservative views typically wind up grayed, even when they are substantive arguments.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

This is because it is de facto HN policy to be OK with downvoting to register disagreement. pg put that one down and it hasn't changed.

bradleyankrom 10y ago
I've noticed flagging being used similarly, too. The argument that downvoting should be used to register disagreement falls apart when you consider that only users with enough (>= 500, I think?) karma have disagreement privileges.
- lake99 10y ago
  I think the 500 limit is justified as a means to discourage vote-brigading. Age of the account, by itself, is not a good enough indicator, because a person might create hundreds of accounts to be used for brigading at a later date. But, yes, both downvoting and flagging can and have been abused here, despite measures to prevent them.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Flagging is extremely effective in taking content off the front page. I understand the intention, to quickly kill spam and avoid flame war topics, but it's extremely powerful in even preventing discussion on issues and it is probably a greater contribution to groupthink than downvoting comments is. Agenda setting, controlling which topics are discussed at all, is way more powerful than controlling the range of views expressed on those topics.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    I think you can "vouch" for posts and submissions now to counter the flagging. Of course, that assumes you will catch them before they fall off the front page or get auto-deleted.
  - bradleyankrom 10y ago
    I was referring to comment flagging, for which there appears to be no recourse (at least from my 140something-karma account's view). Similar problem(?), though.

vertex-four 10y ago

Right-libertarian views are generally most popular here - both "conservative" and "liberal" (American definitions of both) views are generally not popular. And god forbid you have views that would be considered slightly left of center in much of the EU.

hsod 10y ago
I think this is pretty true for economic issues, but not for diversity/identity politics/social justice. On those issues, the HN-hivemind is pretty solidly leftist (though not to the extremes of some corners of the web).
- mintplant 10y ago
  Wait, what? Really? I would point to the comments on just about any "women in tech" story as a counterexample.
  - james-watson 10y ago
    I have had previous accounts banned for stating the following: "Homo sapiens are a sexually dimorphic species of primates, in which the Y chromosome results in differential physiological development between males and females." So yes, HN is quite a hivemind when it comes to gender/identity politics. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment.
    - PieterH 10y ago
      HN is overall polite and mature, especially compared to Reddit. Yet it can't escape its background culture. Some truths will always be taboo.
    - nkurz 10y ago
      Perhaps I live with rose colored glasses, but I do not believe that anyone has ever be be banned from HN for making that quoted statement unless you have left out some essential detail. My guess would be that you made that statement, and subsequently you were banned for something else. Perhaps you could post a link to the thread in question? Never mind, maybe I found it, or at least the account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9039872. A little bristly, and I'm not sure if the assumptions are correct (Is it unequivocal that "Status is zero sum"?) but doesn't seem ban-worthy. But since it's a year before the account appears banned, maybe I'm missing a later comment with the exact quote? Presuming this is the account you are referring to, it looks to have actually been banned for the similarly themed but much more aggressive comment "Sexual dimorphism is real. Your impotent rage and ridiculous ideologies will never change that fact. I will be greatly amused by your kind's zealous need to tilt at windmills." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11226294), which when challenged by Dan you defended by saying "I have a policy to return hostility in kind." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227788). I think this counts as leaving out an essential detail. The problem is not that discussing sexually dimorphism is off limits (others appear to have done so without being banned) but that taking "he did it first" is not a acceptable excuse for rude behavior here. Or maybe I have the timeline slightly off? It's hard to tell when some of the edits occurred. In any case, I'm going to keep my rose colored glasses on for a bit longer. I'd encourage you to keep making scientifically accurate statements about sexual dimorphism from your new account, but given that some interpretations have sensitive implications, it would probably be wise to approach it as politely as possible. In fact, I have a feeling I'll get banned for this comment. No, I don't think you will. You can actually discuss many "controversial" topics here as long as you try to do so politely. Assuming I found the right thread, it looks like the ban wasn't because you raised a forbidden topic, but for your stated policy of returning hostility in kind. "Tit for tat" has it's place in game theory, but in real games (and communities) it has some serious defects if blindly applied. The main defect in this context is that if all players adhere to the simplest version, it has a tendency to end in a "death spiral" of defection. Eventually, a poorly phrased response is interpreted as an insult, and after that it's a permanent race to the bottom. The strategy can be improved by adding some degree of "forgiveness" to allow both parties to reset to cooperation. Adjusting the trigger to require multiple offenses before retaliation ("tit for two tats") can also help to account for inevitable communication errors. Welcome back.

yodsanklai 10y ago

> Conservative views typically wind up grayed, even when they are substantive arguments. Not sure about that, could you find one such comment? Many people would upvote any greyed comment that comes with substantive arguments, regardless of their political view.

pvdebbe 10y ago

To me, HN's "bias" is not so much about left/right, but rather the individualism/collectivism aspect of things. "Regulation is a good tool to weed out the bad stuff; free market can't solve this or that; ban human drivers when self-driving vehicles mature; taxes as means of control" and so on. We agree to disagree on many cases very maturely but very often I see just discussion that would warrant to rename this site to "Collectivist news".