5 ms·

The existence of a mechanism doesn't absolve HN of responsibility or guarantee objectivity, it just means there is a fig leaf of plausible deniability. Equating

The existence of a mechanism doesn't absolve HN of responsibility or guarantee objectivity, it just means there is a fig leaf of plausible deniability. Equating vigorous debate with a flamewar is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is also pretty ridiculous to posit no link between the different moderation mechanisms. Being downvoted unjustly and reflexively is going to annoy commenters and make them comment back in defense. It sends a social signal that some view is unacceptable, which makes them look like troublemakers a priori. It's also inaccurate to call this an overt feature, because there is no disclosure on affected threads. While I'm sympathetic to not wanting to stoke fires, it's fair to think the system is being gamed when I never see this happen to threads that skew in the opposite direction about a story that promotes the orthodox view. It will also create exactly the kind of unresolved discussions that guarantee a repeat until the end of time, as a self fulfilling prophecy. The vigorous discussion should be a sign that people do want to discuss it, and I'm not convinced the flaggers and downvoters are representative of what the community at large believes. In the case of the Damore memo, informal anonymous surveys inside Google showed a very mixed landscape, in a company that skews very orthodox already. For a community that draws from a much wider geography, it is fair to assume even more disagreement. There is ample evidence of ends-justifies-means behavior from the people who want to impose their moral order on the tech scene, and pretending it isn't happening, under the guise of promoting reasonable debate, is incredibly naive. If anything, these threads should be explicitly allowed to stand, leaving it up to individuals to decide whether to wade in, perhaps with a "keep it civil" preamble.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The existence of a mechanism doesn't absolve HN of responsibility I didn't say it did, I said that the mechanism which detects controversy withoutbconcern for ideology was far more likely to blame than an ideological bias. Obviously, HN is responsible for the existence of the mechanism. > or guarantee objectivity, I don't see objectivity as a goal in the first place. The overt standard for inclusion in HN [0], “anything good hackers would find interesting”, that which “gratifies one’s intellectual curiosity”; not “[m]ost stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon” [emphasis added] are inherently highly subjective. If you want objectivity, a community whose overt standards are highly subjective is not where you want to go. But it's quite odd to come and sign up for a community with such overt standards and then spend a lot of time complaining about the lack of objectivity—it was literally what you signed up for. > Being downvoted unjustly and reflexively is going to annoy commenters and make them comment back in defense. Commenting on downvotes is explicitly against the commenting guidelines. Downvotes do not, under any circumstances, compel responses, nor will they ever produce responses from people following the rules of the community. To the extent that people are positing about downvotes they or others have recieved, they are deliberately and wantonly violating the norms of the community by so doing (it's also quite stupid, even aside from the norms, to do so quickly because on controversial topics inappropriate downvotes are quite often negated within a few hours.) > The vigorous discussion should be a sign that people do want to discuss it Which they can (and do) continue to do, and if you want to catch those ongoing controversies you can browse in “comments” view instead of the front page. The front page is for things that generate more light than heat. You can choose your view based on your preferences.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The existence of a mechanism doesn't absolve HN of responsibility I didn't say it did, I said that the mechanism which detects controversy withoutbconcern for ideology was far more likely to blame than an ideological bias. Obviously, HN is responsible for the existence of the mechanism. > or guarantee objectivity, I don't see objectivity as a goal in the first place. The overt standard for inclusion in HN [0], “anything good hackers would find interesting”, that which “gratifies one’s intellectual curiosity”; not “[m]ost stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon” [emphasis added] are inherently highly subjective. If you want objectivity, a community whose overt standards are highly subjective is not where you want to go. But it's quite odd to come and sign up for a community with such overt standards and then spend a lot of time complaining about the lack of objectivity—it was literally what you signed up for. > Being downvoted unjustly and reflexively is going to annoy commenters and make them comment back in defense. Commenting on downvotes is explicitly against the commenting guidelines. Downvotes do not, under any circumstances, compel responses, nor will they ever produce responses from people following the rules of the community. To the extent that people are positing about downvotes they or others have recieved, they are deliberately and wantonly violating the norms of the community by so doing (it's also quite stupid, even aside from the norms, to do so quickly because on controversial topics inappropriate downvotes are quite often negated within a few hours.) > The vigorous discussion should be a sign that people do want to discuss it Which they can (and do) continue to do, and if you want to catch those ongoing controversies you can browse in “comments” view instead of the front page. The front page is for things that generate more light than heat. You can choose your view based on your preferences.