5 ms·

I agree! Since Hacker News could also potentially be such a way to disseminate bad information we should remove all comments here too. See the problem? That's

I agree! Since Hacker News could also potentially be such a way to disseminate bad information we should remove all comments here too. See the problem? That's basically what you're justifying.

number_six 8y ago
IGNORE ME! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNJuSl91qY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNJuSl91qY
clucas 8y ago
There are logical stopping points on the way from "all comments should be allowed" to "no comments should be allowed." One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." In fact, (almost?) all worthwhile online communities are somewhere between the two extremes you seem to advocate. They don't always call it "deplatforming," which may be where you're getting hung up, but comment moderation is everywhere, and it does work. Now, if you want to say that Youtube could handle this particular type of comment moderation in a better way, I think there are plenty of arguments to be made. But the choice isn't "all comments" or "no comments."
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." The comment chain is about whether comment sections should be available or not, not individual comments. Furthermore, down the chain you'll find a person saying that they like youtube's comment sections, because it represents the way many/most people think. The post I'm replying to is saying that deplatforming is good for stopping the spread of bad information. This does not read like the person is advocating for nuance or some in between solution, because if most people say those kinds of things, then the community would decide that they have merit. >no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments. And who decides what is and is not morally reprehensible? If I tell Americans that letting an 8 year old play outside unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible (as it is illegal in many places in the US). If I tell Polish people that it's okay to punish parents who let their 8 year old play unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible. Both of the stop points you brought up are basically ways to segment communities. Reddit calls this a "circlejerk".
- Kaiyou 8y ago
  You may see logical stopping points, but I see a slippery slope. And at each such stopping points there will be someone having good arguments for going down just a little bit further. Interestingly, starting down that path always seems to start with something relating to pedophilia. It's unfortunate that one always has to defend scoundrels in the first stages of what will otherwise naturally snowball into something nobody at the starting line ever intended for.
gjs278 8y ago
they already do that. you can be banned for being mean to the crazies but they don't ban you for spreading misleading information about technology
jaabe 8y ago
I think HN is actually a poster child of strong moderation on social media, because it remains relevant by being one of the most regulated platforms. There is a reason this place hasn’t devolved into complete and utter uselessness as well as why you rarely see any form of political debate, and it’s exactly because this places isn’t liberatarian in its approach to free speech. Free speech comes with responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to make sure people aren’t legally monetising videos of children for pedofiles. I know it’s not always a popular opinion, but I think social media has been hiding from its responsibility for far too long, and I’m personally happy the EU is stepping in to regulate it. Big tech companies shouldn’t be able to get away with things no one else could simply by being big. Especially not when it’s used to undermine the foundation of our society. If someone uses your platform for a network of pedos, or to commit genocide then you are also responsible for enabling it in my opinion.
- 0x445442 8y ago
  I'd say the one down side to HN is the moderation and I don't think social media has any responsibility to moderate comments. Readers of NN comments are free to ignore any content they wish to ignore. I find the trend of individuals demanding organizations and governments protect them from content they may find distasteful or content they don't agree with to very disturbing.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  HN is self selecting a higher quality audience. The content is interesting to an educated audience, the website contains very little fluff/idle entertainment and the ui is ugly to the average user.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    While true, the moderation system also tends to discourage the snarky or ad hominem attack that at least some of us might otherwise be attempted to make from time to time.
- GoblinSlayer 8y ago
  Is your reasoning invariant across different moral systems (like Iran, China)?
dang 8y ago
This comment breaks the site guidelines—in particular this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." You also got into some pretty flamey discussions elsewhere, e.g. the religious flamebait in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19275923—not https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19275923—not cool on Hacker News. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and refrain from doing those things here, we'd be grateful.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Hi dang, I’m given to understand that you’re one of the moderators here. I’ve tried to contact you three times in theee weeks through email, and this is my third time trying to get your attention in the comments, so far without a response. Is there a better way to contact you? I don’t feel good about inserting my comment in an unrelated post like this, but I’m unsure what else to do.
  - dexen 8y ago
    I've had good results sending messages to mailbox named "hn" in the "ycombinator" domain, in "com" TLD.
    - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
      I’ve tried that for three weeks without a response.
      - dexen 8y ago
        I would assume your email address is mistakenly flagged by anti-spam system, and proceed accordingly.
        toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        This is me proceeding accordingly, short of making a bunch of email accounts on different services, which seems a bit shady.

I agree! Since Hacker News could also potentially be such a way to disseminate bad information we should remove all comments here too. See the problem? That's basically what you're justifying.

number_six 8y ago

IGNORE ME! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNJuSl91qY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNJuSl91qY

clucas 8y ago

There are logical stopping points on the way from "all comments should be allowed" to "no comments should be allowed." One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." In fact, (almost?) all worthwhile online communities are somewhere between the two extremes you seem to advocate. They don't always call it "deplatforming," which may be where you're getting hung up, but comment moderation is everywhere, and it does work. Now, if you want to say that Youtube could handle this particular type of comment moderation in a better way, I think there are plenty of arguments to be made. But the choice isn't "all comments" or "no comments."

Mirioron 8y ago
>One such stopping point could be "no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments." Another such stopping point could be "all comments should be allowed, except those which the community has decided have no merit." The comment chain is about whether comment sections should be available or not, not individual comments. Furthermore, down the chain you'll find a person saying that they like youtube's comment sections, because it represents the way many/most people think. The post I'm replying to is saying that deplatforming is good for stopping the spread of bad information. This does not read like the person is advocating for nuance or some in between solution, because if most people say those kinds of things, then the community would decide that they have merit. >no comments should be allowed on media with certain features that overwhelmingly tend to attract morally reprehensible comments. And who decides what is and is not morally reprehensible? If I tell Americans that letting an 8 year old play outside unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible (as it is illegal in many places in the US). If I tell Polish people that it's okay to punish parents who let their 8 year old play unsupervised, then I would be found to be morally reprehensible. Both of the stop points you brought up are basically ways to segment communities. Reddit calls this a "circlejerk".
Kaiyou 8y ago
You may see logical stopping points, but I see a slippery slope. And at each such stopping points there will be someone having good arguments for going down just a little bit further. Interestingly, starting down that path always seems to start with something relating to pedophilia. It's unfortunate that one always has to defend scoundrels in the first stages of what will otherwise naturally snowball into something nobody at the starting line ever intended for.

gjs278 8y ago

they already do that. you can be banned for being mean to the crazies but they don't ban you for spreading misleading information about technology

jaabe 8y ago

I think HN is actually a poster child of strong moderation on social media, because it remains relevant by being one of the most regulated platforms. There is a reason this place hasn’t devolved into complete and utter uselessness as well as why you rarely see any form of political debate, and it’s exactly because this places isn’t liberatarian in its approach to free speech. Free speech comes with responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to make sure people aren’t legally monetising videos of children for pedofiles. I know it’s not always a popular opinion, but I think social media has been hiding from its responsibility for far too long, and I’m personally happy the EU is stepping in to regulate it. Big tech companies shouldn’t be able to get away with things no one else could simply by being big. Especially not when it’s used to undermine the foundation of our society. If someone uses your platform for a network of pedos, or to commit genocide then you are also responsible for enabling it in my opinion.

0x445442 8y ago
I'd say the one down side to HN is the moderation and I don't think social media has any responsibility to moderate comments. Readers of NN comments are free to ignore any content they wish to ignore. I find the trend of individuals demanding organizations and governments protect them from content they may find distasteful or content they don't agree with to very disturbing.
ndnxhs 8y ago
HN is self selecting a higher quality audience. The content is interesting to an educated audience, the website contains very little fluff/idle entertainment and the ui is ugly to the average user.
- ghaff 8y ago
  While true, the moderation system also tends to discourage the snarky or ad hominem attack that at least some of us might otherwise be attempted to make from time to time.
GoblinSlayer 8y ago
Is your reasoning invariant across different moral systems (like Iran, China)?

dang 8y ago

This comment breaks the site guidelines—in particular this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." You also got into some pretty flamey discussions elsewhere, e.g. the religious flamebait in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19275923—not https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19275923—not cool on Hacker News. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and refrain from doing those things here, we'd be grateful.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
Hi dang, I’m given to understand that you’re one of the moderators here. I’ve tried to contact you three times in theee weeks through email, and this is my third time trying to get your attention in the comments, so far without a response. Is there a better way to contact you? I don’t feel good about inserting my comment in an unrelated post like this, but I’m unsure what else to do.
- dexen 8y ago
  I've had good results sending messages to mailbox named "hn" in the "ycombinator" domain, in "com" TLD.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    I’ve tried that for three weeks without a response.
    - dexen 8y ago
      I would assume your email address is mistakenly flagged by anti-spam system, and proceed accordingly.
      - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
        This is me proceeding accordingly, short of making a bunch of email accounts on different services, which seems a bit shady.