3 ms·

It would be great if the mod team expressed such a commitment by manually reviewing flagged articles to remove the flag and prevent any further flagging in case

It would be great if the mod team expressed such a commitment by manually reviewing flagged articles to remove the flag and prevent any further flagging in cases such as this, where it seems that the article was flagged for no other reason than that many HN readers disagree with its content and wish to suppress the diffusion thereof. Disagreeing is fine, but then write a thoughtful reply rather than just hit "flag." "Flag" is supposed to be for spam and grossly off-topic articles, not for articles where you happen to dislike the author's conclusion.

throwanem 10y ago
The moderators do sometimes unflag articles to foster discussion of controversial political topics, and they did so at least once in the immediate wake of the election. I don't think they have to do so every time, and in general, the quality of discourse here is sufficiently high that it's hard to make a strong case against the way they do their work. I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.
- grzm 10y ago
  I agree with everything you say here, and you're well-spoken and civil, someone I would be happy to engage with. Right up until your last two sentences. Why are those necessary? What do you they add to your message? How welcome would you feel if you read something like this? When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please. I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them. But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around, and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers. I want to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the only one. I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it. Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    This is an entirely reasonable and meritorious criticism. I appreciate it. Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is good. But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to do better next time.

throwanem 10y ago

The moderators do sometimes unflag articles to foster discussion of controversial political topics, and they did so at least once in the immediate wake of the election. I don't think they have to do so every time, and in general, the quality of discourse here is sufficiently high that it's hard to make a strong case against the way they do their work. I agree that this article might have been worth letting spend longer on the front page. But seeing it forced off so quickly is informative in its own right, however disappointing. When progressives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please.

grzm 10y ago
I agree with everything you say here, and you're well-spoken and civil, someone I would be happy to engage with. Right up until your last two sentences. Why are those necessary? What do you they add to your message? How welcome would you feel if you read something like this? When conservatives feel themselves open to genuine dialogue, we'll be here. In the meantime, they may render themselves as irrelevant as they please. I know there are some people out there that would say it wouldn't bother them. But is it really polite? Don't get me wrong. I see similar tone all around, and then see people act surprised when tensions rise and discourse suffers. I want to have discussions with people who have a different perspective. HN has a lot of thoughtful people. And that includes you. I want to hear from you how you think about things, rather than hear it second or third hand. But I hate being subjected to dismissive statements like this. I suspect I'm not the only one. I think this is a primary reason a lot of these types of posts get flagged by users. Not because the topic is uninteresting to a lot of people. It's because in their experience, the discussion that results is empirically not worth it. Here's hoping for open, civil, constructive discussion.
- throwanem 10y ago
  This is an entirely reasonable and meritorious criticism. I appreciate it. Having been on the receiving end of that kind of contempt for rather a long time, it is sometimes difficult to resist the temptation to give vent to the resulting resentment, especially at a time when those from whom such contempt has so often come are already reeling from a generally similar sort of backlash. One feels a certain urge to get one's own back while the getting is good. But temptation is sent to be overcome, and there is no excuse for actually indulging in such unworthy behavior. I'm sorry for having done so. I'll try to do better next time.