3 ms·

Transparency is the big thing here. And yet, HN is one big opaque pile of SV. Scores? Nah we keep them secret from others. Who downvoted/silenced someone? We

Transparency is the big thing here. And yet, HN is one big opaque pile of SV. Scores? Nah we keep them secret from others. Who downvoted/silenced someone? We don't discuss that. Unpopular opinion, but intellectually interesting? Someone (mods or others) silence and rate limit you. Your opinion does not matter. Mods threaten you for "ideological rants"... Its because it was not in the interests of SV/HN. How dare you discuss 'unapproved topics'. We have better solutions right now. But at this moment, we have no clue what these scores actually are- its information assymetry at its worst. Reversing public scores would be a start. Publishing who up/downvoted would be another. Showing flagged and killed would be a further step in the right direction of transparency. And so would also getting rid of hellbanning. But, we end up with mob justice, overseen by a trite dictatorship.

pjc50 8y ago
Publishing voters is a move towards, not away from, "mob justice".
NicoJuicy 8y ago
I don't agree and didn't downvoted. But it's simply not a good argument though. Eg. Who downvoted me? Let's check out there previous post and downvote all of the comments. Put a HN alert on it, so I can make his life hell... The mods do a good work though, eg. I would like to talk politics, but there is a reason that it's ignored ( correctly so, for quality of the comments) And please, don't let anyone discuss 10 threads why he's downvoted to go off-topic. I would appreciate better replies if it happens, but that's hard to crack.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  You've made good points why transparency wouldn't be good. And unfortunately, like any sort of voting system will have its flaws. However, I think the abuses of everything being opaque is much more deleterious. In the case of HN, speaking rights are directly linked to groupthink. If you're highly +1'ed, you get to speak more. If you're -1'ed, you speak less (rate limited). But yet, +1 als means "agree" or groupthink. -1 is reserved for trolls and flamewar starters. But yet, it's also used as a "I don't like you", "You're wrong", "Disagree", "Not popular"... Groupthink. Sure, you can have strong content converse to the article.. at -4. Transparency allows us to see these groups in action, and shines a light on the whole system. Sure, some bad actors can brigade specific users - but I see that as the exception and not the norm.

pjc50 8y ago

Publishing voters is a move towards, not away from, "mob justice".

NicoJuicy 8y ago

I don't agree and didn't downvoted. But it's simply not a good argument though. Eg. Who downvoted me? Let's check out there previous post and downvote all of the comments. Put a HN alert on it, so I can make his life hell... The mods do a good work though, eg. I would like to talk politics, but there is a reason that it's ignored ( correctly so, for quality of the comments) And please, don't let anyone discuss 10 threads why he's downvoted to go off-topic. I would appreciate better replies if it happens, but that's hard to crack.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
You've made good points why transparency wouldn't be good. And unfortunately, like any sort of voting system will have its flaws. However, I think the abuses of everything being opaque is much more deleterious. In the case of HN, speaking rights are directly linked to groupthink. If you're highly +1'ed, you get to speak more. If you're -1'ed, you speak less (rate limited). But yet, +1 als means "agree" or groupthink. -1 is reserved for trolls and flamewar starters. But yet, it's also used as a "I don't like you", "You're wrong", "Disagree", "Not popular"... Groupthink. Sure, you can have strong content converse to the article.. at -4. Transparency allows us to see these groups in action, and shines a light on the whole system. Sure, some bad actors can brigade specific users - but I see that as the exception and not the norm.