4 ms·

Awesome, thanks - I just got bingo! I don't know if you're aware but articles can move off the front page because people (like me) flag them (as I did). If eno

by to3m 9y ago

Awesome, thanks - I just got bingo! I don't know if you're aware but articles can move off the front page because people (like me) flag them (as I did). If enough people flag it, off it goes. Sometimes the article sticks around, and obviously mine was a minority voice. Sometimes it disappears, probably because, I expect, most people are like me: we've seen this stuff discussed before, and the discussions are, on average, poison - or, worse, repetitive and dull. So, flag. Flag, flag, flag. (That's what I think to myself, anyway. Actually, I only get the option of flagging it the once.) I make no bones about this, and I won't apologize for my actions, because I have nothing to apologize for. I vote according to my principles and mine alone. If these principles happen to be shared by others, great. If not, that's fine too. Democracy in action. (Well... I do admit that I give the discussions a quick skim, just on the off-chance I might see tptacek in action. My guilty pleasure! There's also the chance that somebody might actually, you know, make a good point, but I don't worry too much about that because my experience is that the risk is very low...)

throwaway1584 9y ago
So what you are saying is that you are the kind of person that would have send people to the Gulag for having a different viewpoint. Good job. I am sure this feels pleasant as long as your viewpoint is in power. Tyrannies rarely stay that way though, so good luck.
- to3m 9y ago
  My understanding is that the flag button merely makes it more likely the discussion will vanish off the front page, and there is no punishment for the participants.
  - throwaway1584 9y ago
    Even if that is correct it does not make it a just way of fighting for your cause. Voting for articles on the front-page of HN is equivalent to a vote in a democracy. If you removed the opposing party candidate from the ballot you might reach your short-term goal, but at the cost of a functioning democracy. In this case the article was marked as a dupe, but this specific article was not posted twice and previous articles on the subject was quickly voted off the frontpage by people like you despite high interest. This didn't happen to articles critical of Damore, so this seems to be exclusively a social justice tactic. Edit: explained better why talking about voting is relevant as an analogy
    - to3m 9y ago
      I expect the moderators, or whoever it is that looks after this stuff, decided that since it was discussing the same case as the other articles then it counted as one in principle. Sometimes multiple articles relating to a particular issue are posted. When these links don't attract much discussion, this isn't much of a problem. But when they do, it's probably best to try to centralize the discussion, lest the entire front page get filled up multiple copies of the same stuff. This has happened before in the past and it's a bit dull if it's something in which you have zero interest.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Those articles were all flagged off the front page, not many people got the chance to see them in the first place. Whoever claimed this was a dupe was just being dishonest and possibly malicious.
        grzm 9y ago
        I understand your point that if a submission hasn't been widely seen subsequent submissions shouldn't be marked as a dupe. That said, HN is curated, both by the mods and members. It's not purely a popularity contest or a democracy. Members may (and do) disagree on the curation methods, but the curation methods don't require a certain threshold of visibility for any given piece before taking effect. Marking a submission as a dupe serves a different purpose: it provides a pointer to the "canonical" submission for a given discussion, and not just for those that have spent some threshold of time on the front page. You may very well disagree with the effects of HN curation in general or for this submission in particular; however, I think it's valuable to recognize that marking submissions as dupes and flagging/downweighting are independent.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Marking of a submission as a dupe that was previously itself flagged off the front page is patently dishonest. Of course, HN is curated, its members can curate however they want, for whatever reasons they want, and those reasons are not always going to be good ones, which in this case they obviously aren't.
- dang 9y ago
  We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. It's pretty rich to go on about censorship and then pull a move like this. If we don't ban you, then comments like yours destroy the site, but if we do, you can do the "help help did you see he just repressed me" bit from Monty Python.

by to3m 9y ago

throwaway1584 9y ago

So what you are saying is that you are the kind of person that would have send people to the Gulag for having a different viewpoint. Good job. I am sure this feels pleasant as long as your viewpoint is in power. Tyrannies rarely stay that way though, so good luck.

to3m 9y ago
My understanding is that the flag button merely makes it more likely the discussion will vanish off the front page, and there is no punishment for the participants.
- throwaway1584 9y ago
  Even if that is correct it does not make it a just way of fighting for your cause. Voting for articles on the front-page of HN is equivalent to a vote in a democracy. If you removed the opposing party candidate from the ballot you might reach your short-term goal, but at the cost of a functioning democracy. In this case the article was marked as a dupe, but this specific article was not posted twice and previous articles on the subject was quickly voted off the frontpage by people like you despite high interest. This didn't happen to articles critical of Damore, so this seems to be exclusively a social justice tactic. Edit: explained better why talking about voting is relevant as an analogy
  - to3m 9y ago
    I expect the moderators, or whoever it is that looks after this stuff, decided that since it was discussing the same case as the other articles then it counted as one in principle. Sometimes multiple articles relating to a particular issue are posted. When these links don't attract much discussion, this isn't much of a problem. But when they do, it's probably best to try to centralize the discussion, lest the entire front page get filled up multiple copies of the same stuff. This has happened before in the past and it's a bit dull if it's something in which you have zero interest.
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Those articles were all flagged off the front page, not many people got the chance to see them in the first place. Whoever claimed this was a dupe was just being dishonest and possibly malicious.
      - grzm 9y ago
        I understand your point that if a submission hasn't been widely seen subsequent submissions shouldn't be marked as a dupe. That said, HN is curated, both by the mods and members. It's not purely a popularity contest or a democracy. Members may (and do) disagree on the curation methods, but the curation methods don't require a certain threshold of visibility for any given piece before taking effect. Marking a submission as a dupe serves a different purpose: it provides a pointer to the "canonical" submission for a given discussion, and not just for those that have spent some threshold of time on the front page. You may very well disagree with the effects of HN curation in general or for this submission in particular; however, I think it's valuable to recognize that marking submissions as dupes and flagging/downweighting are independent.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Marking of a submission as a dupe that was previously itself flagged off the front page is patently dishonest. Of course, HN is curated, its members can curate however they want, for whatever reasons they want, and those reasons are not always going to be good ones, which in this case they obviously aren't.
dang 9y ago
We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. It's pretty rich to go on about censorship and then pull a move like this. If we don't ban you, then comments like yours destroy the site, but if we do, you can do the "help help did you see he just repressed me" bit from Monty Python.