5 ms·

Guess I'm on the moderators' radar. For a crowd that likes to consider itself the internet's intelligentsia, HN readers at large seem surprisingly ignorant of

by na85 8y ago

Guess I'm on the moderators' radar. For a crowd that likes to consider itself the internet's intelligentsia, HN readers at large seem surprisingly ignorant of the fact that since technology is a human endeavor, politics and tech are forever inextricably linked. Thus, the blanket ban on political articles only makes sense for articles that have no technological aspect. Surveillance of journalists, pervasive state- and corporate-enabled surveillance at that, is exactly what HN should be discussing. But I guess it's easier to just stick our heads in the sand, not think too hard about where our paycheck comes from, and discuss the latest Electron Bloatware as a Service.

olfactory 8y ago
Very well put. I've made a very similar point to HN mods in the past and it was arrogantly rebuffed. They just don't perceive the distinction you describe. I think many HN readers agree with the point you make, but a vocal and influential minority (as well as the mods) do not.
- throwajay9462 8y ago
  the “silent majority” is a fantastic sign of a bad argument the truth is actually very simple; politics is merely one aspect, not always present, rarely the most important, and even more rarely interesting
- na85 8y ago
  Well, if any moderator reads this and wants to discuss it civilly then they should email me and I will happily oblige.
barrkel 8y ago
Thus, the blanket ban on political articles only makes sense for articles that have no technological aspect. Whether something is worth talking about is distinct from whether the discussion that observably occurs was worthwhile. Political discussions usually descend into arguments about competing values. People have different interpretations of the trade-offs, and the friction turns into a lot of heat, without much light.
- olfactory 8y ago
  > Political discussions usually descend into arguments about competing values. People have different interpretations of the trade-offs, and the friction turns into a lot of heat, without much light. The same can be said for discussion of any topic that pulls in peoples' identities and not just their rational faculties. It's something we should strive to overcome through thoughtful discussion, feedback, and examples from the community of HN users, not something to suppress or avoid. Most people go through some period of time in their lives when they are highly emotional/irrational in their analysis of important factual information. It's something to be outgrown, not simply shut down. Sadly in this case, the mods have not outgrown it and they have been given moderation powers, and rather than respectfully engage with others they use those powers to suppress and intimidate, in the process decimating what was once an occasionally feisty but ultimately respectful community. It was truly bad judgment to give the mods such power. Unlike the youthful vision that makes young startup founders visionaries, the mods have youthful hubris and a strange, disturbingly machiavellian taste for authoritarian control.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Bitcoin discussions for example have similar limitations and I would be happy to ban them as well. In the end HN has limited bandwidth and there are more interesting things to discuss.
    - olfactory 8y ago
      Not sure how HN has limited bandwidth. It would seemingly be easy to simply ignore Bitcoin discussions if you don't care for the topic. I avoid discussions of Ruby on Rails but do not believe they should be suppressed.
      - Karunamon 8y ago
        There are only a certain number of spaces on the front page, and I think there's a legitimate argument that the vitriol political discussions tend to generate will subtly seep into a community over time. I'd rather see the political garbage relegated to the many other places more suited for it. This means accepting that certain topics are not a good fit here. Do we really need to re-litigate "what about the jobs?" anytime an AI discussion comes up? Or "what about Trump?" every time Twitter comes up?
Retric 8y ago
The problem with discussing politics online is it ends up as an identity issue. People end up trying to score points not actually discuss things. In the end there are places on the internet to discuss just about anything. HN is limiting politics is a large part of why I am here and not somewhere else.
- idea3 8y ago
  I realize that replying to this interesting comment will somehow cross a line that moderators have in place for the level of participation in a thread. However I'll take the risk because I think you bring up an interesting point. Edit: My account was throttled just now so hitting submit on this post was blocked. Be careful criticizing anything about the mods :) Suppose two people have differing beliefs, call them A and -A. One person might explain why A, the other might explain why -A. The arguments (in the logical sense, not the conflict sense) can be very well reasoned and informative. In the end maybe both will believe A or both will believe -A. The problem you cite seems to occur when the arguments include ad hominem attacks or generalizations about "everyone who believes -A". Some of these types of generalizations occur because the people involved believe the generalization to be true. Of these, some are due to prejudice, others are due to lack of actual data, others are due to lack of thoughtful analysis and reasoning. Making such generalizations is not typically a helpful way to engage in the discussion of A or -A, but I'd argue that they are sometimes used a shorthand for broader sentiments. In other words, they are as likely to be due to sloppy articulation as they are to signal deeper beliefs, identity or emotional state. It takes practice to be able to discuss politics. It (frankly) takes practice to be able to discuss politics with smart people who don't necessarily fit the mold of the typical identity-driven partisan. Just as HN should be patient with someone who argues that PHP is a superior language for systems programming, we should be patient with someone who holds ill-founded beliefs on political issues. Having the remark down-voted to oblivion, or making a snarky reply will only cause the poster to recoil and feel defensive about the belief. But writing up a detailed response that respectfully addresses the problems with the analysis and sheds light on important themes is one of the most respectful things one human can do for another. Strangely, HN mods have zeroed in on the most surface level aspect of identity-correlated discussions and have failed to articulate a principled ethos for moderation decisions. Most egregiously, they have failed to lead by example and offer respectful contributions to important, politically and emotionally charged issues our society has been dealing with over the past few years. One day anthropologists will study HN for evidence on how we ended up in a heavily authoritarian society that had no respect for enlightenment values. I suspect it will be fairly obvious what kind of chilling effect HN moderators had. HN is one of the few places where smart people congregate, and HN mods prefer a world in which such people simply report to work for some silicon valley firm and do not take responsibility as citizens for their beliefs. HN moderation is anti-citizenship and anti-rationality. While it can be broadly characterized as a response to the rise of Trump (it didn't really get bad until after the election in the midst of the Russia story), it has gone way beyond what could be considered a reasonable and temporary response.
icebraining 8y ago
There's no blanket ban on political articles. The mods tried a "no politics week" once, but it didn't even last that. The guidelines only say to avoid "most" stories about politics.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Thus, the blanket ban on political articles The blanket ban on political articles was very brief and ended a long time ago. Many political articles (including, IMO, this one) run afoul of the general guidelines, “Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon”, but that's not a blanket ban.

by na85 8y ago

olfactory 8y ago

Very well put. I've made a very similar point to HN mods in the past and it was arrogantly rebuffed. They just don't perceive the distinction you describe. I think many HN readers agree with the point you make, but a vocal and influential minority (as well as the mods) do not.

throwajay9462 8y ago
the “silent majority” is a fantastic sign of a bad argument the truth is actually very simple; politics is merely one aspect, not always present, rarely the most important, and even more rarely interesting
na85 8y ago
Well, if any moderator reads this and wants to discuss it civilly then they should email me and I will happily oblige.

barrkel 8y ago

Thus, the blanket ban on political articles only makes sense for articles that have no technological aspect. Whether something is worth talking about is distinct from whether the discussion that observably occurs was worthwhile. Political discussions usually descend into arguments about competing values. People have different interpretations of the trade-offs, and the friction turns into a lot of heat, without much light.

olfactory 8y ago
> Political discussions usually descend into arguments about competing values. People have different interpretations of the trade-offs, and the friction turns into a lot of heat, without much light. The same can be said for discussion of any topic that pulls in peoples' identities and not just their rational faculties. It's something we should strive to overcome through thoughtful discussion, feedback, and examples from the community of HN users, not something to suppress or avoid. Most people go through some period of time in their lives when they are highly emotional/irrational in their analysis of important factual information. It's something to be outgrown, not simply shut down. Sadly in this case, the mods have not outgrown it and they have been given moderation powers, and rather than respectfully engage with others they use those powers to suppress and intimidate, in the process decimating what was once an occasionally feisty but ultimately respectful community. It was truly bad judgment to give the mods such power. Unlike the youthful vision that makes young startup founders visionaries, the mods have youthful hubris and a strange, disturbingly machiavellian taste for authoritarian control.
- Retric 8y ago
  Bitcoin discussions for example have similar limitations and I would be happy to ban them as well. In the end HN has limited bandwidth and there are more interesting things to discuss.
  - olfactory 8y ago
    Not sure how HN has limited bandwidth. It would seemingly be easy to simply ignore Bitcoin discussions if you don't care for the topic. I avoid discussions of Ruby on Rails but do not believe they should be suppressed.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      There are only a certain number of spaces on the front page, and I think there's a legitimate argument that the vitriol political discussions tend to generate will subtly seep into a community over time. I'd rather see the political garbage relegated to the many other places more suited for it. This means accepting that certain topics are not a good fit here. Do we really need to re-litigate "what about the jobs?" anytime an AI discussion comes up? Or "what about Trump?" every time Twitter comes up?

Retric 8y ago

The problem with discussing politics online is it ends up as an identity issue. People end up trying to score points not actually discuss things. In the end there are places on the internet to discuss just about anything. HN is limiting politics is a large part of why I am here and not somewhere else.

idea3 8y ago
I realize that replying to this interesting comment will somehow cross a line that moderators have in place for the level of participation in a thread. However I'll take the risk because I think you bring up an interesting point. Edit: My account was throttled just now so hitting submit on this post was blocked. Be careful criticizing anything about the mods :) Suppose two people have differing beliefs, call them A and -A. One person might explain why A, the other might explain why -A. The arguments (in the logical sense, not the conflict sense) can be very well reasoned and informative. In the end maybe both will believe A or both will believe -A. The problem you cite seems to occur when the arguments include ad hominem attacks or generalizations about "everyone who believes -A". Some of these types of generalizations occur because the people involved believe the generalization to be true. Of these, some are due to prejudice, others are due to lack of actual data, others are due to lack of thoughtful analysis and reasoning. Making such generalizations is not typically a helpful way to engage in the discussion of A or -A, but I'd argue that they are sometimes used a shorthand for broader sentiments. In other words, they are as likely to be due to sloppy articulation as they are to signal deeper beliefs, identity or emotional state. It takes practice to be able to discuss politics. It (frankly) takes practice to be able to discuss politics with smart people who don't necessarily fit the mold of the typical identity-driven partisan. Just as HN should be patient with someone who argues that PHP is a superior language for systems programming, we should be patient with someone who holds ill-founded beliefs on political issues. Having the remark down-voted to oblivion, or making a snarky reply will only cause the poster to recoil and feel defensive about the belief. But writing up a detailed response that respectfully addresses the problems with the analysis and sheds light on important themes is one of the most respectful things one human can do for another. Strangely, HN mods have zeroed in on the most surface level aspect of identity-correlated discussions and have failed to articulate a principled ethos for moderation decisions. Most egregiously, they have failed to lead by example and offer respectful contributions to important, politically and emotionally charged issues our society has been dealing with over the past few years. One day anthropologists will study HN for evidence on how we ended up in a heavily authoritarian society that had no respect for enlightenment values. I suspect it will be fairly obvious what kind of chilling effect HN moderators had. HN is one of the few places where smart people congregate, and HN mods prefer a world in which such people simply report to work for some silicon valley firm and do not take responsibility as citizens for their beliefs. HN moderation is anti-citizenship and anti-rationality. While it can be broadly characterized as a response to the rise of Trump (it didn't really get bad until after the election in the midst of the Russia story), it has gone way beyond what could be considered a reasonable and temporary response.

icebraining 8y ago

There's no blanket ban on political articles. The mods tried a "no politics week" once, but it didn't even last that. The guidelines only say to avoid "most" stories about politics.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Thus, the blanket ban on political articles The blanket ban on political articles was very brief and ended a long time ago. Many political articles (including, IMO, this one) run afoul of the general guidelines, “Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon”, but that's not a blanket ban.