4 ms·

Purpose of HN is ultimately agitprop for YC. It makes sense that curation of posts occurs--this only confuses people that buy too much into the "hacker" ethos.

tptacek 9y ago
This is silly.
- angersock 9y ago
  How so? HN is run by YC, and HN is used to promote YC companies and attract talent and normalize YC-style startup culture. Please elaborate before being so dismissive--you know, like we used to do on old HN.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I wrote a longer comment, originally, but cut it back to the single sentence when I realized that by dignifying the argument I was only lending your tossed-off slur more credibility. HN is not moderated so as to be agitprop for YC. Nobody who's talked to Dan for more than a couple minutes, or watched this site discuss the SFBA tech industry, could believe that. The difference between the site post-Dan and pre-Dan --- you know, the "old" HN vs. today --- is that you can repeatedly write unfounded accusations like that today and not have your account shadowbanned and all your comments rank-penalized, like they were when Paul Graham ran the site. We all accepted those arbitrary moderation decisions back then, when there was no pretense of fairness or equity in moderation. Now that we have it, we attack the people who spend their time assuring it by making preposterous comparisons to the "good old days".
    - angersock 9y ago
      Comments are still rank-penalized and detached, so that's not exactly a thing of the past. I am not arguing dang is doing a bad job--I'm arguing that their job is done with an eye more towards keeping a community in line with YC interests than promoting pure free-speech or hacker culture. That includes things like killing off certain contentious posts, removing grossly off-topic material, and a lot of other frankly decent moderation.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
      Rank penalization is alive and well in the dang era, I assure you. It's variously applied to my entire account, and I was penalized so heavily at one point that I appeared below every gray comment. Lately, it seems to oscillate with no rhyme or reason. > Yes, your account has a penalty that accounts get when they post too many low-quality comments--specifically ones that are uncivil and/or unsubstantive and/or tediously argumentative. That's how it was explained to me, by Dan. He didn't stop the practice, and I'd contend he's probably doubled down on it.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        I don't know why you're using my comment as a venue to litigate penalties applied to your account. The point here isn't "people like 'jsmthrowaway get penalized". They do. The point is "moderation is far more coherent and transparent now than it was in some supposed 'good old days'", when you could be shadowbanned simply for irritating Paul Graham.
        jsmthrowaway 9y ago
        And your point is wrong. You seemed to claim that in the dang era rank penalization is a thing of the past. You seem to claim that unsubstantive comments will no longer get you penalized. You are claiming that these decisions are more transparent and less arbitrary than under pg. All three are completely false, but you're just not subjected to them. I was not informed that I had been quietly penalized in any way until I noticed something was amiss, because the fact that that facility even exists is not common knowledge. Sir_Cmpwn didn't even list it in his moderator tools. The entire second paragraph of the comment to which I replied is wrong. Your followup (which ascribes motive to me, something I note you've gone after others for doing in this thread) is also wrong. I'm not litigating anything. I'm pointing out that you're wrong. You're also forgiven for not being aware of this, given your typical comment quality and status.
        tptacek 9y ago
        It's like you didn't read my comment and instead just decided to litigate further whether your penalties are legitimate. I'm the wrong person to have this conversation with, because --- just to be direct about this --- I do not care.
- Sone7 9y ago
  Is it though. Because it seems like we have zero evidence either which way, and your account is seemingly always on the status quo side. Myself, I see fuck all discussion on here any more that reminds me of old HN.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    You figured me out!
    - Sone7 9y ago
      It wasn't hard. Feel free to prove me wrong with some time you stuck your neck out against surveillance or our current economic system, or give me another weak-ass one liner, your call.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    Recently, flippant one-line comments have been upvoted instead of downvoted. This is a startling change.

tptacek 9y ago

This is silly.

angersock 9y ago
How so? HN is run by YC, and HN is used to promote YC companies and attract talent and normalize YC-style startup culture. Please elaborate before being so dismissive--you know, like we used to do on old HN.
- tptacek 9y ago
  I wrote a longer comment, originally, but cut it back to the single sentence when I realized that by dignifying the argument I was only lending your tossed-off slur more credibility. HN is not moderated so as to be agitprop for YC. Nobody who's talked to Dan for more than a couple minutes, or watched this site discuss the SFBA tech industry, could believe that. The difference between the site post-Dan and pre-Dan --- you know, the "old" HN vs. today --- is that you can repeatedly write unfounded accusations like that today and not have your account shadowbanned and all your comments rank-penalized, like they were when Paul Graham ran the site. We all accepted those arbitrary moderation decisions back then, when there was no pretense of fairness or equity in moderation. Now that we have it, we attack the people who spend their time assuring it by making preposterous comparisons to the "good old days".
  - angersock 9y ago
    Comments are still rank-penalized and detached, so that's not exactly a thing of the past. I am not arguing dang is doing a bad job--I'm arguing that their job is done with an eye more towards keeping a community in line with YC interests than promoting pure free-speech or hacker culture. That includes things like killing off certain contentious posts, removing grossly off-topic material, and a lot of other frankly decent moderation.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
    Rank penalization is alive and well in the dang era, I assure you. It's variously applied to my entire account, and I was penalized so heavily at one point that I appeared below every gray comment. Lately, it seems to oscillate with no rhyme or reason. > Yes, your account has a penalty that accounts get when they post too many low-quality comments--specifically ones that are uncivil and/or unsubstantive and/or tediously argumentative. That's how it was explained to me, by Dan. He didn't stop the practice, and I'd contend he's probably doubled down on it.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I don't know why you're using my comment as a venue to litigate penalties applied to your account. The point here isn't "people like 'jsmthrowaway get penalized". They do. The point is "moderation is far more coherent and transparent now than it was in some supposed 'good old days'", when you could be shadowbanned simply for irritating Paul Graham.
      - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
        And your point is wrong. You seemed to claim that in the dang era rank penalization is a thing of the past. You seem to claim that unsubstantive comments will no longer get you penalized. You are claiming that these decisions are more transparent and less arbitrary than under pg. All three are completely false, but you're just not subjected to them. I was not informed that I had been quietly penalized in any way until I noticed something was amiss, because the fact that that facility even exists is not common knowledge. Sir_Cmpwn didn't even list it in his moderator tools. The entire second paragraph of the comment to which I replied is wrong. Your followup (which ascribes motive to me, something I note you've gone after others for doing in this thread) is also wrong. I'm not litigating anything. I'm pointing out that you're wrong. You're also forgiven for not being aware of this, given your typical comment quality and status.
        tptacek 9y ago
        It's like you didn't read my comment and instead just decided to litigate further whether your penalties are legitimate. I'm the wrong person to have this conversation with, because --- just to be direct about this --- I do not care.
Sone7 9y ago
Is it though. Because it seems like we have zero evidence either which way, and your account is seemingly always on the status quo side. Myself, I see fuck all discussion on here any more that reminds me of old HN.
- tptacek 9y ago
  You figured me out!
  - Sone7 9y ago
    It wasn't hard. Feel free to prove me wrong with some time you stuck your neck out against surveillance or our current economic system, or give me another weak-ass one liner, your call.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  Recently, flippant one-line comments have been upvoted instead of downvoted. This is a startling change.