4 ms·

> We can have social media platforms free from overt abuse without restricting the views being aired In theory, yes. In reality, even in these hallowed and sup

> We can have social media platforms free from overt abuse without restricting the views being aired In theory, yes. In reality, even in these hallowed and supposedly rational halls of HN, certain views are immediately hammered with downvotes and flagging and ominous warnings from moderators, no matter how urbane the tone, and often irregardless whether said views have a decent empirical underpinning.

lucideer 9y ago
HN has a very good, solid, commendable moderation policy. It's also an echo chamber. These are separate topics though: I (mostly* ) don't believe one feeds the other, I strongly believe the reasons for the echo chamber here are unrelated. HN is not just a tech discussion forum, it's one administered and hosted by an influential, Silicon Valley VC company. This means, with zero input from moderators, the views expressed will naturally tend toward a worldview that endorses the activities of such a firm, and the tendencies of local SV culture. * I say mostly as there was just one case here on HN in the not too distant past around political topics that were explicitly banned, which is the first and only example of moderation based on topic rather than based on behaviour I've seen here. That aside, my points above stand.
- interfixus 9y ago
  You are (mostly!) right. And I am not really objecting to the HN ethos and policy. I am just pointing it out. Don't believe me? Try posting a gushing endorsement of your current president's policies (assuming you are American). Or take the road less traveled on any number of social, gender, what-have-you issues. See how it goes.
  - lucideer 9y ago
    A gushing endorsement of any president's policies would probably be objected to on the grounds of it being generally OT (most comments here don't really gush, strong endorsements of anything that go beyond simple "this works for me, I recommend it" are frowned upon). A comment saying "I am a Trump supporter, which is relevant here because [x], and here are my related views on [current topic] from my perspective as such" voiced in a reasonable tone would be fine here, I think, for the most part. Wouldn't they? There is another type of censorship that comes from a community continuously voicing one opinion, to the point that those holding an opposing opinion avoid voicing it for fear of general reputational damage within the community - this may result in less people posting about their support of Trump here (and there is very little of this), but I don't think that's related to the moderation.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  There are definitely some other topics that get moderated off HN - I've had a moderator tell me, basically, my viewpoint on a particular religious figure is not appropriate to state here (with a threat of being banned should I ever mention it again). We don't see all moderator actions, nor what content gets flagged; moderation is pretty opaque here IMO. I've always assumed that was on purpose to allow commercial bias without begin overt about it.
mikestew 9y ago
ominous warnings from moderators, no matter how urbane the tone Not once have I seen moderation based on viewpoint (and I do have showdead on). Without fail it has been because the poster repeatedly been an assclown in tone and wording, including when that moderation has been turned on myself. The fact that the moderated holds an unpopular opinion at times seems to be coincidence. There might be a correlation there, but it’s not with the moderation.
- interfixus 9y ago
  A neatly unassailable point of view.
  - mikestew 9y ago
    As if you supported your complaint with solid examples. The last time the moderators smacked you on the nose, you were making inflammatory comments with absolutely nothing to back them up. Just like this time: not one example of this egregious moderation.
    - interfixus 9y ago
      That is a good example you've dug up there. Thank you. I made a statement incontrovertibly grounded in fact, but not resonating well in the present eccosphere. And was promptly flagged and gagged. I realise this is probably a waste of everybody's time and karma-points attempting to debate.

lucideer 9y ago

HN has a very good, solid, commendable moderation policy. It's also an echo chamber. These are separate topics though: I (mostly* ) don't believe one feeds the other, I strongly believe the reasons for the echo chamber here are unrelated. HN is not just a tech discussion forum, it's one administered and hosted by an influential, Silicon Valley VC company. This means, with zero input from moderators, the views expressed will naturally tend toward a worldview that endorses the activities of such a firm, and the tendencies of local SV culture. * I say mostly as there was just one case here on HN in the not too distant past around political topics that were explicitly banned, which is the first and only example of moderation based on topic rather than based on behaviour I've seen here. That aside, my points above stand.

interfixus 9y ago
You are (mostly!) right. And I am not really objecting to the HN ethos and policy. I am just pointing it out. Don't believe me? Try posting a gushing endorsement of your current president's policies (assuming you are American). Or take the road less traveled on any number of social, gender, what-have-you issues. See how it goes.
- lucideer 9y ago
  A gushing endorsement of any president's policies would probably be objected to on the grounds of it being generally OT (most comments here don't really gush, strong endorsements of anything that go beyond simple "this works for me, I recommend it" are frowned upon). A comment saying "I am a Trump supporter, which is relevant here because [x], and here are my related views on [current topic] from my perspective as such" voiced in a reasonable tone would be fine here, I think, for the most part. Wouldn't they? There is another type of censorship that comes from a community continuously voicing one opinion, to the point that those holding an opposing opinion avoid voicing it for fear of general reputational damage within the community - this may result in less people posting about their support of Trump here (and there is very little of this), but I don't think that's related to the moderation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
There are definitely some other topics that get moderated off HN - I've had a moderator tell me, basically, my viewpoint on a particular religious figure is not appropriate to state here (with a threat of being banned should I ever mention it again). We don't see all moderator actions, nor what content gets flagged; moderation is pretty opaque here IMO. I've always assumed that was on purpose to allow commercial bias without begin overt about it.

mikestew 9y ago

ominous warnings from moderators, no matter how urbane the tone Not once have I seen moderation based on viewpoint (and I do have showdead on). Without fail it has been because the poster repeatedly been an assclown in tone and wording, including when that moderation has been turned on myself. The fact that the moderated holds an unpopular opinion at times seems to be coincidence. There might be a correlation there, but it’s not with the moderation.

interfixus 9y ago
A neatly unassailable point of view.
- mikestew 9y ago
  As if you supported your complaint with solid examples. The last time the moderators smacked you on the nose, you were making inflammatory comments with absolutely nothing to back them up. Just like this time: not one example of this egregious moderation.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    That is a good example you've dug up there. Thank you. I made a statement incontrovertibly grounded in fact, but not resonating well in the present eccosphere. And was promptly flagged and gagged. I realise this is probably a waste of everybody's time and karma-points attempting to debate.