5 ms·

Every comment I've seen so far that has been dead or flagged down had these two properties: 1. Honestly attempting to contribute new information and views to t

Every comment I've seen so far that has been dead or flagged down had these two properties: 1. Honestly attempting to contribute new information and views to the conversation, or asking new questions. 2. Opinion or assumptions would be considered immoral from a certain (currently dominant) point of view. It seems pretty clear to me that "high-quality" is being conflated with "reinforces my moral convictions" or "upholds my tribal sacred values". There should be an effort to push back against this (though it'd take a really deep commitment to free speech and against moral/tribal orthodoxy as a general principle). It seems unlikely but one can hope. EDIT: Hilariously, I'm getting downvotes for this. There's an Inception joke in here somewhere.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
HN isn't an ideological battleground. In general, it's for whatever gratifies intellectual curiosity. The flagged comments may have contributed information, but most of them share a common trait: they're incendiary. The way to introduce a controversial idea on HN is to be substantive and neutral. It's not easy to do. People are generally passionate about their points of view, and I've been guilty of this myself. But the ideal is worth striving for. In particular, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules. I did this the other day and regretted it; it unfairly catapulted my comment to the top of the thread due to the overcorrection, and by then it was too late to edit. It's better to let a comment stand or fall on its own merits, as difficult as that is.
- Banthum 9y ago
  >The way to introduce a controversial idea on HN is to be substantive and neutral. I agree in principle. But standards should be applied the same way to all comments with regard to viewpoints. What I'm seeing is that the same standards aren't being applied to different viewpoints. An orthodox viewpoint can be written casually, unsourced, tinged with moral judgment, etc, and still get away unflagged and not downvoted. An unorthodox viewpoint will get ripped apart on the tiniest error, missing source, or mis-chosen wordage. I understand people are tribal and some just want to suppress dissent and maintain the power of their orthodoxy. But I also hope a place like HN can rise above such tribalism. (regarding downvote complaints I don't disagree with the general policy.. if you're referring to my comment you replied to here I didn't intend to complain, only to point out the irony and perhaps try to cue some downvoters to consider what they're doing from a further remove).
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    You can see the content of flagged comments by going into your profile settings and turning on the [showdead] option. Currently there are 26 flagged comments, so to pick a few random ones: "By that standard, the only way to never do anything inappropriate is to never do anything." "It's interesting that you construct a whole evil persona for someone..." "When your worth is defined solely by how horny you make the opposite sex..." "I cannot understand why sexual harassment takes such a toll on women. I've been sexually harassed by other men before, and somehow it wasn't as big of a problem..." I didn't cherry-pick the above examples; they were just the first few that showed up with Command-F [flagged]. "Incendiary" is still probably the best way to describe these comments, which is why they're flagged. The other reason is shallowness on a controversial topic, which usually leads to flamewars. If you see a comment that breaks a specific guideline in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html then you're encouraged to flag it. (You need a certain amount of karma to see the flag button.) The main reason that the comments you mention aren't flagged is usually because they don't violate any of the guidelines. The system isn't perfect, but it seems to work remarkably well given the size of HN's audience. Regarding talking about downvotes, I understand and can relate to the point of view. To clarify, I didn't mean anything by the word "complain." The reason to avoid mentioning "downvotes" at all is because (a) talking about downvotes spawns low-quality subthreads almost instantly, and (b) it gives your comment an unfair advantage. HN's voting system fluctuates wildly thanks to the diversity of the people that now have the privilege of downvoting, but in general, high-quality substantive comments tend to rise. If you want to give a few examples of comments you feel were unfairly flagged, or unflagged comments that you feel break the guidelines, I'd be happy to chat about those. (We're currently in a flagged subthread, so there's no harm in continuing our conversation.) EDIT: To address one specific point more thoroughly: An orthodox viewpoint can be written casually, unsourced, tinged with moral judgment, etc, and still get away unflagged and not downvoted. An unorthodox viewpoint will get ripped apart on the tiniest error, missing source, or mis-chosen wordage. Unorthodox, controversial viewpoints are indeed held to a higher standard, but the reason is because it fosters better conversation. For these, HN is optimized for substantive-but-neutral. Deviating from either axis tends to produce flamewars of the worst caliber.
- tnone 9y ago
  On this topic, it absolutely is. Whenever these threads happen, they go one way or the other. If the all-genders-equal, non-feminist side swings the discussion, the entire thread disappears off the front page, inexplicably sitting at position 500+ with no flagged indicator. The lambdaconf debacle comes to mind, but it's hardly the only example. If the feminist, women-are-victims-side swings the discussion, the thread is left up, full of moral chastising, with a graveyard of flagged comments serving as a warning to the evil dissenters. On this topic, HN is unquestionably biased from the top, and the pretense otherwise is laughably non-credible and deluded. Furthermore, while meta-complaining is against the rules, this rule is again only enforced against those who question the party line, not those lamenting the amount of immoral thought on display. The bigger message being sent is obvious though: men, don't bother apologizing for your missteps or character flaws. Forgiveness is not coming. If a woman got drunk at a guy's house, and was being insistent upon being shown the door, throwing it in her face would be considered cold and insensitive.
  - tnone 9y ago
    Here, let me tell you a story. It's past 3am in the big city, I'm returning from a night out. While riding up the elevator, i can't help but notice the guy I'm sharing it with is a sobbing mess. I've never seen him before, but he gets out on my floor and heads in the opposite direction. I go inside, but as I get ready for bed, someone bangs loudly and repeatedly on my door. It's the guy. I hesitate opening. He knocks some more. Worried something bad happened to him, I let him in and ask what's wrong. He's locked out. He quickly gets into a tirade, about how his girlfriend broke up with him. That's why he's drunk. He doesn't know where his keys are but probably left them at a friend's. I feel somewhat cheated for my sympathy, having assumed far worse. Instead it's just self inflicted misery. I listen for a bit but try to make it clear I'd like to go to bed. Spotting a pipe on the coffee table, he suggests we light up instead and I let him crash. I firmly decline. I decide this person is the master of their own destiny, ask them to leave, and suggest they grab a cab or bus to their friend's place. Against much protest, I get him out the door and feel immense relief. If I'd been a woman, just saying I'd felt unsafe would've sufficed. I could've just called the police about this dangerous man banging on my door. Of course, it wasn't a guy knocking. It was a girl. She was drunk out of her mind, ready to get even more wasted, and she made it clear I was the bad guy for not immediately considering her problems mine.
Zikes 9y ago
We're being bludgeoned by the hammer of sexism, in a discussion about the perils of sexism in the industry, on the foremost discussion board in the industry. The irony. I've submitted a formal request to have my account banned. I'll not be part of this ineffectual echo chamber any longer.
hyperdunc 9y ago
Not every flagged comment has been flagged undeservedly, but some of them have. I agree that there is a trend on HN where comments that go against the "moral convictions" or politics of the majority are flagged. It's disappointing to see this happening. Flagging a poorly worded or clearly incendiary comment is fair. That's not what has happened to some of the comments for this article. I hesitate to call it censorship, but it comes close.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Would you mind listing some examples of flagged comments that you feel don't break the guidelines?
  - whiddershins 9y ago
    I feel that my two comments, although tone deaf, possibly misguided, and certainly not well worded, were good faith comments that did not overtly violate guidelines. I've never had my comments on hn flagged before and can't help but think I wandered into a minefield. Nearly half of the top level comments on this thread are flagged. If you include the ones that are downvoted into oblivion it is fully half at the time of this writing. Is that because this article is beset by trolls, or because the conversation is being stifled? Hard to say. But I know my intention was good faith.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      I think you're referring to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692957. This was a tough one. I ultimately decided not to vouch it, and I'd like to try to explain why. It doesn't have anything to do with the content or my own feelings on the matter, but rather the way in which the idea was presented. I agree that it was in good faith, and it was also substantive. But it's not really neutral: "But seriously? Do I live in an alternate reality where drunk people do all sorts of borderline illegal inappropriate stuff on a regular basis?" "It may seem insensitive, but I am being pragmatic: whether or not something "haunts" you has as much to do with your way of framing an event and your attitude towards trauma as the actual event. Just because someone else did something wrong is no reason to carry it with you for years." I can only describe my own perspective on the comment, which may not represent everyone else's. But the reason that I feel the flag is deserved is that even though the comment is written in good faith, it presents your side as clearly correct. The implication is that if anyone disagrees with you, they must be mistaken. The phrasing "Do I live in an alternate reality...?" sets up the reader to want to disagree with you. It's argumentative rather than pensive. It's entirely possible that your life experiences are an outlier rather than representative. E.g. I agree that drunk people tend to do risky things, but in my own life, my friends manage to restrain themselves pretty well. I'm probably the outlier rather than you, but the point is that framing the argument as can't-possibly-be-wrong is poisonous to thoughtful conversation. That leads to the other issue, which is that it blames the victim of harassment for feeling harassed. It's certainly possible that whether you're harmed by an incident is a matter of perspective, but it's not automatically up to the victim to fortify themselves. If someone is legitimately distraught over an incident, they'll carry that with them in ways that alter their future behavior to their own detriment. The core difference is the betrayal of someone you trusted and respected: if you're harassed by someone on the street, you can shrug it off. If someone you respect tries to force you into a corner and plant their lips on you, you're going to freak out and wonder how many other people in power are secretly this way, and how you could possibly be so naive to think they weren't. That sort of betrayal can stay with you for years. So it's not that your comment was mistaken, but rather the nature of your phrasing tends to exclude thoughtful replies from forming, combined with the fact that the topic itself is extremely controversial. It's very difficult to react well to someone who both blames the victim and sets up an argument as if their life experiences are representative of the norm. (But I totally agree with you that it was written in good faith! I was just trying to explain some of the reasons why it got flagged, not call you out on anything.) One thing that helped me in this regard was to phrase my controversial ideas as questions. "Drunk people tend to do reckless things. Would it be a good idea to cut him some slack in this case?" is far more likely to generate thoughtful comments than "Drunk people do reckless things. I can't believe that we're not cutting him some slack." Hope this helps clarify a bit. The overall point is that if you put a lot of conversational passion into your side of the argument, this typically causes the other side to give an equally passionate rebuttal. But that's just another name for a flamewar. That's why it's better to be dispassionate yet substantive.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

HN isn't an ideological battleground. In general, it's for whatever gratifies intellectual curiosity. The flagged comments may have contributed information, but most of them share a common trait: they're incendiary. The way to introduce a controversial idea on HN is to be substantive and neutral. It's not easy to do. People are generally passionate about their points of view, and I've been guilty of this myself. But the ideal is worth striving for. In particular, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules. I did this the other day and regretted it; it unfairly catapulted my comment to the top of the thread due to the overcorrection, and by then it was too late to edit. It's better to let a comment stand or fall on its own merits, as difficult as that is.

Banthum 9y ago
>The way to introduce a controversial idea on HN is to be substantive and neutral. I agree in principle. But standards should be applied the same way to all comments with regard to viewpoints. What I'm seeing is that the same standards aren't being applied to different viewpoints. An orthodox viewpoint can be written casually, unsourced, tinged with moral judgment, etc, and still get away unflagged and not downvoted. An unorthodox viewpoint will get ripped apart on the tiniest error, missing source, or mis-chosen wordage. I understand people are tribal and some just want to suppress dissent and maintain the power of their orthodoxy. But I also hope a place like HN can rise above such tribalism. (regarding downvote complaints I don't disagree with the general policy.. if you're referring to my comment you replied to here I didn't intend to complain, only to point out the irony and perhaps try to cue some downvoters to consider what they're doing from a further remove).
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  You can see the content of flagged comments by going into your profile settings and turning on the [showdead] option. Currently there are 26 flagged comments, so to pick a few random ones: "By that standard, the only way to never do anything inappropriate is to never do anything." "It's interesting that you construct a whole evil persona for someone..." "When your worth is defined solely by how horny you make the opposite sex..." "I cannot understand why sexual harassment takes such a toll on women. I've been sexually harassed by other men before, and somehow it wasn't as big of a problem..." I didn't cherry-pick the above examples; they were just the first few that showed up with Command-F [flagged]. "Incendiary" is still probably the best way to describe these comments, which is why they're flagged. The other reason is shallowness on a controversial topic, which usually leads to flamewars. If you see a comment that breaks a specific guideline in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html then you're encouraged to flag it. (You need a certain amount of karma to see the flag button.) The main reason that the comments you mention aren't flagged is usually because they don't violate any of the guidelines. The system isn't perfect, but it seems to work remarkably well given the size of HN's audience. Regarding talking about downvotes, I understand and can relate to the point of view. To clarify, I didn't mean anything by the word "complain." The reason to avoid mentioning "downvotes" at all is because (a) talking about downvotes spawns low-quality subthreads almost instantly, and (b) it gives your comment an unfair advantage. HN's voting system fluctuates wildly thanks to the diversity of the people that now have the privilege of downvoting, but in general, high-quality substantive comments tend to rise. If you want to give a few examples of comments you feel were unfairly flagged, or unflagged comments that you feel break the guidelines, I'd be happy to chat about those. (We're currently in a flagged subthread, so there's no harm in continuing our conversation.) EDIT: To address one specific point more thoroughly: An orthodox viewpoint can be written casually, unsourced, tinged with moral judgment, etc, and still get away unflagged and not downvoted. An unorthodox viewpoint will get ripped apart on the tiniest error, missing source, or mis-chosen wordage. Unorthodox, controversial viewpoints are indeed held to a higher standard, but the reason is because it fosters better conversation. For these, HN is optimized for substantive-but-neutral. Deviating from either axis tends to produce flamewars of the worst caliber.
tnone 9y ago
On this topic, it absolutely is. Whenever these threads happen, they go one way or the other. If the all-genders-equal, non-feminist side swings the discussion, the entire thread disappears off the front page, inexplicably sitting at position 500+ with no flagged indicator. The lambdaconf debacle comes to mind, but it's hardly the only example. If the feminist, women-are-victims-side swings the discussion, the thread is left up, full of moral chastising, with a graveyard of flagged comments serving as a warning to the evil dissenters. On this topic, HN is unquestionably biased from the top, and the pretense otherwise is laughably non-credible and deluded. Furthermore, while meta-complaining is against the rules, this rule is again only enforced against those who question the party line, not those lamenting the amount of immoral thought on display. The bigger message being sent is obvious though: men, don't bother apologizing for your missteps or character flaws. Forgiveness is not coming. If a woman got drunk at a guy's house, and was being insistent upon being shown the door, throwing it in her face would be considered cold and insensitive.
- tnone 9y ago
  Here, let me tell you a story. It's past 3am in the big city, I'm returning from a night out. While riding up the elevator, i can't help but notice the guy I'm sharing it with is a sobbing mess. I've never seen him before, but he gets out on my floor and heads in the opposite direction. I go inside, but as I get ready for bed, someone bangs loudly and repeatedly on my door. It's the guy. I hesitate opening. He knocks some more. Worried something bad happened to him, I let him in and ask what's wrong. He's locked out. He quickly gets into a tirade, about how his girlfriend broke up with him. That's why he's drunk. He doesn't know where his keys are but probably left them at a friend's. I feel somewhat cheated for my sympathy, having assumed far worse. Instead it's just self inflicted misery. I listen for a bit but try to make it clear I'd like to go to bed. Spotting a pipe on the coffee table, he suggests we light up instead and I let him crash. I firmly decline. I decide this person is the master of their own destiny, ask them to leave, and suggest they grab a cab or bus to their friend's place. Against much protest, I get him out the door and feel immense relief. If I'd been a woman, just saying I'd felt unsafe would've sufficed. I could've just called the police about this dangerous man banging on my door. Of course, it wasn't a guy knocking. It was a girl. She was drunk out of her mind, ready to get even more wasted, and she made it clear I was the bad guy for not immediately considering her problems mine.

Zikes 9y ago

We're being bludgeoned by the hammer of sexism, in a discussion about the perils of sexism in the industry, on the foremost discussion board in the industry. The irony. I've submitted a formal request to have my account banned. I'll not be part of this ineffectual echo chamber any longer.

hyperdunc 9y ago

Not every flagged comment has been flagged undeservedly, but some of them have. I agree that there is a trend on HN where comments that go against the "moral convictions" or politics of the majority are flagged. It's disappointing to see this happening. Flagging a poorly worded or clearly incendiary comment is fair. That's not what has happened to some of the comments for this article. I hesitate to call it censorship, but it comes close.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Would you mind listing some examples of flagged comments that you feel don't break the guidelines?
- whiddershins 9y ago
  I feel that my two comments, although tone deaf, possibly misguided, and certainly not well worded, were good faith comments that did not overtly violate guidelines. I've never had my comments on hn flagged before and can't help but think I wandered into a minefield. Nearly half of the top level comments on this thread are flagged. If you include the ones that are downvoted into oblivion it is fully half at the time of this writing. Is that because this article is beset by trolls, or because the conversation is being stifled? Hard to say. But I know my intention was good faith.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I think you're referring to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692957 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692957. This was a tough one. I ultimately decided not to vouch it, and I'd like to try to explain why. It doesn't have anything to do with the content or my own feelings on the matter, but rather the way in which the idea was presented. I agree that it was in good faith, and it was also substantive. But it's not really neutral: "But seriously? Do I live in an alternate reality where drunk people do all sorts of borderline illegal inappropriate stuff on a regular basis?" "It may seem insensitive, but I am being pragmatic: whether or not something "haunts" you has as much to do with your way of framing an event and your attitude towards trauma as the actual event. Just because someone else did something wrong is no reason to carry it with you for years." I can only describe my own perspective on the comment, which may not represent everyone else's. But the reason that I feel the flag is deserved is that even though the comment is written in good faith, it presents your side as clearly correct. The implication is that if anyone disagrees with you, they must be mistaken. The phrasing "Do I live in an alternate reality...?" sets up the reader to want to disagree with you. It's argumentative rather than pensive. It's entirely possible that your life experiences are an outlier rather than representative. E.g. I agree that drunk people tend to do risky things, but in my own life, my friends manage to restrain themselves pretty well. I'm probably the outlier rather than you, but the point is that framing the argument as can't-possibly-be-wrong is poisonous to thoughtful conversation. That leads to the other issue, which is that it blames the victim of harassment for feeling harassed. It's certainly possible that whether you're harmed by an incident is a matter of perspective, but it's not automatically up to the victim to fortify themselves. If someone is legitimately distraught over an incident, they'll carry that with them in ways that alter their future behavior to their own detriment. The core difference is the betrayal of someone you trusted and respected: if you're harassed by someone on the street, you can shrug it off. If someone you respect tries to force you into a corner and plant their lips on you, you're going to freak out and wonder how many other people in power are secretly this way, and how you could possibly be so naive to think they weren't. That sort of betrayal can stay with you for years. So it's not that your comment was mistaken, but rather the nature of your phrasing tends to exclude thoughtful replies from forming, combined with the fact that the topic itself is extremely controversial. It's very difficult to react well to someone who both blames the victim and sets up an argument as if their life experiences are representative of the norm. (But I totally agree with you that it was written in good faith! I was just trying to explain some of the reasons why it got flagged, not call you out on anything.) One thing that helped me in this regard was to phrase my controversial ideas as questions. "Drunk people tend to do reckless things. Would it be a good idea to cut him some slack in this case?" is far more likely to generate thoughtful comments than "Drunk people do reckless things. I can't believe that we're not cutting him some slack." Hope this helps clarify a bit. The overall point is that if you put a lot of conversational passion into your side of the argument, this typically causes the other side to give an equally passionate rebuttal. But that's just another name for a flamewar. That's why it's better to be dispassionate yet substantive.