5 ms·

The worst part is how so much gets censored on HN. I've seen dozens of stories that are negative of Google get flagged and removed. For example, NY Times had a

by Jerry2 8y ago

The worst part is how so much gets censored on HN. I've seen dozens of stories that are negative of Google get flagged and removed. For example, NY Times had a story on Google's Pentagon contract today and the story got flagged and you cannot submit it anymore. I guess HN is complicit in all this censorship for some reason. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project-maven-pentagon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project...

DanBC 8y ago
Here's a thread with over a thousand comments. That doesn't sound like censorship. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530
- Jerry2 8y ago
  Why was the NYTimes story from yesterday killed? Story you linked is from almost two months ago. It definitely looks like censorship.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    That NYT article received 166 votes and 198 comments [1], and was on the front page for about 13 hours [2]. Sometimes stories drop off the front page if they have more comments than votes, as it signals a flamewar, which makes for boring reading at best and leads to uncivil behaviour or trolling at worst. It would be pointless for HN to try and "censor" things that the community wanted to discuss, as people would just find out about it and discuss it elsewhere. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17192601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17192601 [2] http://hnrankings.info/17192601/ http://hnrankings.info/17192601/
danso 8y ago
A week-long search for HN titles mentioning Google has at least 3 negative titles (including this one) with 100+ upvotes: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=google&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=pastWeek&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=google&sort=byPopularity&prefi... I was reminded of a front page thread a few days ago -- the NYT feature about the impact of Google's cat-loving employees on protected wild owls [0] -- in which people complained that such a trivial subject only made the NYT out of a vindictiveness towards Google [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164286
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by Jerry2 8y ago

DanBC 8y ago

Here's a thread with over a thousand comments. That doesn't sound like censorship. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16755530

Jerry2 8y ago
Why was the NYTimes story from yesterday killed? Story you linked is from almost two months ago. It definitely looks like censorship.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  That NYT article received 166 votes and 198 comments [1], and was on the front page for about 13 hours [2]. Sometimes stories drop off the front page if they have more comments than votes, as it signals a flamewar, which makes for boring reading at best and leads to uncivil behaviour or trolling at worst. It would be pointless for HN to try and "censor" things that the community wanted to discuss, as people would just find out about it and discuss it elsewhere. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17192601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17192601 [2] http://hnrankings.info/17192601/ http://hnrankings.info/17192601/

danso 8y ago

A week-long search for HN titles mentioning Google has at least 3 negative titles (including this one) with 100+ upvotes: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=google&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=pastWeek&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=google&sort=byPopularity&prefi... I was reminded of a front page thread a few days ago -- the NYT feature about the impact of Google's cat-loving employees on protected wild owls [0] -- in which people complained that such a trivial subject only made the NYT out of a vindictiveness towards Google [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164286

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]