6 ms·

Perhaps grounding your moderation policies around concepts you know are undefined and inseparable isn't the best basis for moderating the site. As for how peop

by jdp23 10y ago

Perhaps grounding your moderation policies around concepts you know are undefined and inseparable isn't the best basis for moderating the site. As for how people see your actions: labeling it as "projecting" might make you feel better, but probably gets in the way of you understanding what they're saying. In today's environment, you can't simultaneously make the site an welcoming place for people who are anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-trans (etc.) - and for people who are Muslim, immigrant, women, trans and nonbinary people (etc) or allies to any of these groups. What people are telling you is that they see YC - and you personally - as siding with the bigots.

dang 10y ago
It's the best basis for moderating the site because the alternative is impossible. You're right, though, that I shouldn't use the word 'project' like that.
- throwaway098345 10y ago
  It's not impossible to say "this is a technology site, here we discuss technology" which would make it much less arbitrary which things are politics and not. You might not want to do that, but it's certainly not impossible as an alternative. "Technology only week" is probably even an easier sell for an experiment.
  - dang 10y ago
    HN is not a technology site. It's a site for "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - gravypod 10y ago
      > HN is not a technology site. It's a site for "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" Does political discussion not gratify intellectual curiosity? I'd say that I'm definetly curious to see others political opinions. This is a ban on a discussion topic as arbitrary as banning discussion of IC vs Passives. Not letting people hear opposing view points is more detrimental then seeing a view point you disagree with.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Does political discussion not gratify intellectual curiosity? Yes, political discussion can gratify intellectual curiosity. Empirically it hasn't worked out very well on HN. To me, your comment completely ignores the paragraphs written by dang in the submission, both the content, and the fact that it's temporary. What do you think of the intent? Do you disagree? Have you seen or participated in any of the recent (past two or three months) of political threads on HN? Do you have showdead on so you can see what's being posted and flagged? Do you think it's okay? If you don't agree with the intent or think there is an issue, that would put your comment in one context. If you agree it's an issue and disagree with the political detox week, then that's another. Would you elaborate on your comment?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Yes, political discussion can gratify intellectual curiosity. Empirically it hasn't worked out very well on HN. I disagree. It's worked out smashingly well on HN (judgingnit context of 25 or so years of engagement in online fora of various types); the appearance that it has not is due to unrealistic standards, and radical reconfigurations to deal with the supposed failures are likely to lead to more harm to HNs goal of providing a forum for gratifying intellectual curiosity than benefit.
        dang 10y ago
        I always appreciate your comments, and the ones I've seen in this thread have been an interesting take on the question. Just one point though: there's no radical reconfiguration here. Undoubtedly it would be if we were going to make it permanent, but when we said "for one week" we really meant for one week. IMO HN's community system has orders of magnitude more hysteresis than would be radically affected by a one-week change, though I guess I could be wrong about that.
        yarou 10y ago
        Speaking of reconfiguration, why not buff the controversy penalty instead of outright banning political discussion? Couldn't you also enable an enhanced slow mode on threads that seem political in nature? Maybe something like the "hate tax" system proposed here[1]. I feel as though political topics tend to generate a knee-jerk response in people, especially when they are in an...shall we say, altered state of mind. The more controversial a topic is, the slower the pace of discussion should be IMHO. Exponentially so. [1] https://zedshaw.com/archive/ragel-state-charts/ https://zedshaw.com/archive/ragel-state-charts/
    - zorpner 10y ago
      I'll say it once and quickly -- you've allowed yourself to be tricked by the same trick the modern alt-right (bigots, racists all) have used on the rest of the internet, where they make discourse on specific topics so toxic that the topic itself becomes banned, allowing the status quo to persist. You're literally now on their side, and their side is the status quo of white supremacy. Think about what side you want to be on.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        Except the topic need not be so toxic - Why does Ben Shapiro have such a hard time speaking on campus?
- jdp23 10y ago
  A classic HN moment: 'dang tells me I'm right, and I'm downvoted to -3 :) > the alternative is impossible Interesting phrasing.
  - belorn 10y ago
    (guessing here) The downvotes are not because of the word "project", or anything in the two first sentences. Its because you called people "as siding with the bigots" because they disagree. There is also some extrapolation that result in insults. Are anti-religion people bigots? Are Egalitarianism bigots because they don't agree with new feminism? Is the illegal vs legal-immigration discussions bigotry?
    - jdp23 10y ago
      Thanks for the feedback. You're probably right that the downvotes aren't related to the first two sentences. Pro-diversity stuff routinely gets downvoted here, especially when it uses the f-word. Still, if you read more closely, I didn't call people bigoted because they disagree. I called the people who are "anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-trans (etc)" bigots. That seems like the right word to me.
Chris2048 10y ago
> people who are anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-trans (etc.) - and for people who are Muslim, immigrant, women, trans and non-binary people (etc) Those are beliefs vs identity, a particularly tricky subject. The problem is when, I for example, don't see it that way; I see many of those "identities" to be beliefs also, beliefs about self. As an example, to a Creationist, arguments about evolution are about identity - there are few boundaries to which subjects people involve their own self-worth/identity. A similar argument arises wrt trans people and the various proposed categories that have arisen - simply saying "this is who we are" is not enough, since exactly that is what is debated. That said, I suspect you mean "you can't welcome both women, and people who hold anti-woman beliefs". But the labeling of any belief is itself a belief. Some of those idea you call "anti-women" can both be considered not anti-woman and be held by women e.g. not all feminist believe sexual content to be harmful to women, or the idea to be productive.
- jdp23 10y ago
  Thanks for the reply. I agree that identity intersects with beliefs -- and more generally worldview, including epistemology, ontology, etc. And yes, there are certainly some areas where there are debates about whether particular behavior is or isn't anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, or anti-trans. As you say, these things are tricky. Still, the points I was making ''aren't'' tricky. - For the dimensions that I listed (and implied with the "etc"), in today's environment, HN is kidding themselves by thinking they can welcome "both sides" - the feedback they're getting is from people (including me) who see YC and 'dang personally as aligning themselves with the antis by blocking political discussion > That said, I suspect you mean "you can't welcome both women, and people who hold anti-woman beliefs". No, I meant very specifically that in today's context HN - and by extension YC - can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    by 'anti' you mean "anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, or anti-trans"? How does the political ban align with this? > can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies. ally is a feminist term, but why can't women be anti-feminist? Are you describing this to be the case, or prescribing it?

by jdp23 10y ago

dang 10y ago

It's the best basis for moderating the site because the alternative is impossible. You're right, though, that I shouldn't use the word 'project' like that.

throwaway098345 10y ago
It's not impossible to say "this is a technology site, here we discuss technology" which would make it much less arbitrary which things are politics and not. You might not want to do that, but it's certainly not impossible as an alternative. "Technology only week" is probably even an easier sell for an experiment.
- dang 10y ago
  HN is not a technology site. It's a site for "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity": https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - gravypod 10y ago
    > HN is not a technology site. It's a site for "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" Does political discussion not gratify intellectual curiosity? I'd say that I'm definetly curious to see others political opinions. This is a ban on a discussion topic as arbitrary as banning discussion of IC vs Passives. Not letting people hear opposing view points is more detrimental then seeing a view point you disagree with.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Does political discussion not gratify intellectual curiosity? Yes, political discussion can gratify intellectual curiosity. Empirically it hasn't worked out very well on HN. To me, your comment completely ignores the paragraphs written by dang in the submission, both the content, and the fact that it's temporary. What do you think of the intent? Do you disagree? Have you seen or participated in any of the recent (past two or three months) of political threads on HN? Do you have showdead on so you can see what's being posted and flagged? Do you think it's okay? If you don't agree with the intent or think there is an issue, that would put your comment in one context. If you agree it's an issue and disagree with the political detox week, then that's another. Would you elaborate on your comment?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Yes, political discussion can gratify intellectual curiosity. Empirically it hasn't worked out very well on HN. I disagree. It's worked out smashingly well on HN (judgingnit context of 25 or so years of engagement in online fora of various types); the appearance that it has not is due to unrealistic standards, and radical reconfigurations to deal with the supposed failures are likely to lead to more harm to HNs goal of providing a forum for gratifying intellectual curiosity than benefit.
        dang 10y ago
        I always appreciate your comments, and the ones I've seen in this thread have been an interesting take on the question. Just one point though: there's no radical reconfiguration here. Undoubtedly it would be if we were going to make it permanent, but when we said "for one week" we really meant for one week. IMO HN's community system has orders of magnitude more hysteresis than would be radically affected by a one-week change, though I guess I could be wrong about that.
        yarou 10y ago
        Speaking of reconfiguration, why not buff the controversy penalty instead of outright banning political discussion? Couldn't you also enable an enhanced slow mode on threads that seem political in nature? Maybe something like the "hate tax" system proposed here[1]. I feel as though political topics tend to generate a knee-jerk response in people, especially when they are in an...shall we say, altered state of mind. The more controversial a topic is, the slower the pace of discussion should be IMHO. Exponentially so. [1] https://zedshaw.com/archive/ragel-state-charts/ https://zedshaw.com/archive/ragel-state-charts/
  - zorpner 10y ago
    I'll say it once and quickly -- you've allowed yourself to be tricked by the same trick the modern alt-right (bigots, racists all) have used on the rest of the internet, where they make discourse on specific topics so toxic that the topic itself becomes banned, allowing the status quo to persist. You're literally now on their side, and their side is the status quo of white supremacy. Think about what side you want to be on.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Except the topic need not be so toxic - Why does Ben Shapiro have such a hard time speaking on campus?
jdp23 10y ago
A classic HN moment: 'dang tells me I'm right, and I'm downvoted to -3 :) > the alternative is impossible Interesting phrasing.
- belorn 10y ago
  (guessing here) The downvotes are not because of the word "project", or anything in the two first sentences. Its because you called people "as siding with the bigots" because they disagree. There is also some extrapolation that result in insults. Are anti-religion people bigots? Are Egalitarianism bigots because they don't agree with new feminism? Is the illegal vs legal-immigration discussions bigotry?
  - jdp23 10y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. You're probably right that the downvotes aren't related to the first two sentences. Pro-diversity stuff routinely gets downvoted here, especially when it uses the f-word. Still, if you read more closely, I didn't call people bigoted because they disagree. I called the people who are "anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-trans (etc)" bigots. That seems like the right word to me.

Chris2048 10y ago

> people who are anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-trans (etc.) - and for people who are Muslim, immigrant, women, trans and non-binary people (etc) Those are beliefs vs identity, a particularly tricky subject. The problem is when, I for example, don't see it that way; I see many of those "identities" to be beliefs also, beliefs about self. As an example, to a Creationist, arguments about evolution are about identity - there are few boundaries to which subjects people involve their own self-worth/identity. A similar argument arises wrt trans people and the various proposed categories that have arisen - simply saying "this is who we are" is not enough, since exactly that is what is debated. That said, I suspect you mean "you can't welcome both women, and people who hold anti-woman beliefs". But the labeling of any belief is itself a belief. Some of those idea you call "anti-women" can both be considered not anti-woman and be held by women e.g. not all feminist believe sexual content to be harmful to women, or the idea to be productive.

jdp23 10y ago
Thanks for the reply. I agree that identity intersects with beliefs -- and more generally worldview, including epistemology, ontology, etc. And yes, there are certainly some areas where there are debates about whether particular behavior is or isn't anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, or anti-trans. As you say, these things are tricky. Still, the points I was making ''aren't'' tricky. - For the dimensions that I listed (and implied with the "etc"), in today's environment, HN is kidding themselves by thinking they can welcome "both sides" - the feedback they're getting is from people (including me) who see YC and 'dang personally as aligning themselves with the antis by blocking political discussion > That said, I suspect you mean "you can't welcome both women, and people who hold anti-woman beliefs". No, I meant very specifically that in today's context HN - and by extension YC - can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  by 'anti' you mean "anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, or anti-trans"? How does the political ban align with this? > can't simultaneously be welcoming to anti-feminists - and welcoming to women and allies. ally is a feminist term, but why can't women be anti-feminist? Are you describing this to be the case, or prescribing it?