3 ms·

This thread went from 2nd most voted to killed immediately. dang, what can you tell us about this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12651429 https://news.yc

This thread went from 2nd most voted to killed immediately. dang, what can you tell us about this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12651429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12651429 (you need showdead=yes in your profile to see it)

atom-morgan 10y ago
HackerNews has started to feel a bit like Twitter lately.
- cronjobber 10y ago
  They love it when eyeballs write content for free. They hate it when it isn't exactly what they'd have written themselves.
driverdan 10y ago
Saying a well-liked company should fail does not go well around here, especially when they make wild, conspiracy-like accusations with absolutely no supporting evidence.
- tarancato 10y ago
  Twitter chose this long list of liberal-leaning associations to "police" the community. I don't think it's a conspiracy-like accusation to say their moderation leans to the left. https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-s...
  - gjm11 10y ago
    Except that: 1. Those organizations aren't there to "police" the community. Here are Twitter's actual words about what they're meant to do: "The Twitter Trust and Safety Council provides input on our safety products, policies, and programs." Notably not listed there: having any direct power over the Twitter community. 2. The reason why Twitter introduced this thing is that they were getting a lot of flack from people and groups who "lean to the left", for allegedly being a cesspool of the sort of abuse that people and groups who "lean to the left" get most upset about, and not doing anything about it. I don't know whether those accusations were 100% wrong, 100% right, or somewhere in between. But when a company is attacked for doing or allowing something allegedly bad, it's hardly a surprise if the people it gets onside to try to show it's addressing the problem are the sort of people who most disapprove of whatever it was.
gjm11 10y ago
Seems pretty obvious to me: a combination of (1) gratuitously political and (2) gratuitously hysterical. ("Progressive-supremacist"? Really?)
- cronjobber 10y ago
  It's only moral supremacy, not sure that counts.
ihsw 10y ago
The votes were going up and down pretty quickly and hard, HN has a well-established policy of killing controversial threads and submissions. I don't blame the mods for killing it, and nobody should jump to conclusions or accuse censorship. I think it's perfectly understandable.
- sctb 10y ago
  We don't kill comments except when banning users (and in nearly all cases we'll say that we're doing so), and have well-established policy of not doing that. When a comment is dead and says [flagged], it means that users flagged it.
SixSigma 10y ago
The headline is flat out wrong, TWTR is the highest price it has been in a year

atom-morgan 10y ago

HackerNews has started to feel a bit like Twitter lately.

cronjobber 10y ago
They love it when eyeballs write content for free. They hate it when it isn't exactly what they'd have written themselves.

driverdan 10y ago

Saying a well-liked company should fail does not go well around here, especially when they make wild, conspiracy-like accusations with absolutely no supporting evidence.

tarancato 10y ago
Twitter chose this long list of liberal-leaning associations to "police" the community. I don't think it's a conspiracy-like accusation to say their moderation leans to the left. https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-s...
- gjm11 10y ago
  Except that: 1. Those organizations aren't there to "police" the community. Here are Twitter's actual words about what they're meant to do: "The Twitter Trust and Safety Council provides input on our safety products, policies, and programs." Notably not listed there: having any direct power over the Twitter community. 2. The reason why Twitter introduced this thing is that they were getting a lot of flack from people and groups who "lean to the left", for allegedly being a cesspool of the sort of abuse that people and groups who "lean to the left" get most upset about, and not doing anything about it. I don't know whether those accusations were 100% wrong, 100% right, or somewhere in between. But when a company is attacked for doing or allowing something allegedly bad, it's hardly a surprise if the people it gets onside to try to show it's addressing the problem are the sort of people who most disapprove of whatever it was.

gjm11 10y ago

Seems pretty obvious to me: a combination of (1) gratuitously political and (2) gratuitously hysterical. ("Progressive-supremacist"? Really?)

cronjobber 10y ago
It's only moral supremacy, not sure that counts.

ihsw 10y ago

The votes were going up and down pretty quickly and hard, HN has a well-established policy of killing controversial threads and submissions. I don't blame the mods for killing it, and nobody should jump to conclusions or accuse censorship. I think it's perfectly understandable.

sctb 10y ago
We don't kill comments except when banning users (and in nearly all cases we'll say that we're doing so), and have well-established policy of not doing that. When a comment is dead and says [flagged], it means that users flagged it.

SixSigma 10y ago

The headline is flat out wrong, TWTR is the highest price it has been in a year