9 ms·

Hacker News Guidelines What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to

by novia 8y ago

Hacker News Guidelines What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. -------------- To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial. See for example the 2014 Isla Vista massacre. It does not gratify my intellectual curiosity. In fact, it only briefly pretends to be a data driven piece by including a graph at the beginning and citing an informal social media poll. It might be something interesting to discuss, but in my opinion this is not the forum for it.

anonytrary 8y ago
Population dynamics and sexual activity statistics is arguably something that "good hackers would find interesting". If those statistics are changing significantly, then I'd definitely consider that something "that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". Edit: And to clarify, lots of science can be political, but that doesn't make it not-science. For example, breaking news about a new discovery in climate change projections is inherently political but it is also inherently interesting from an intellectual standpoint. Something purely political and not intellectually interesting to hackers might be news about what's happening in the White House right now. In my opinion, anything that falls under the science category is fair game for this community because plenty of people who are hackers are also very interested in science and technology.
- novia 8y ago
  Yes climate change is political, but would the comment section to a climate change article on this site be full of the types of comments we see in here? Would it be an actually divisive topic for the users of this site? What I love about Hacker News (usually) is the lack of flame-wars. I know they exist, but they get hidden very quickly. After reading the article in full, and finding it sparse in actual data, I decided it would most likely generate the sort of discussion that does not belong on the site. Edit to add: If it is merely the "population dynamics and sexual activity statistics" that we should be interested in, why not link directly to the study instead of this meandering commentary on it?
  - anonytrary 8y ago
    This[0] and this[1] are previous discussions on HN about climate change, with plenty of trolls. Just because something gets trolls, doesn't mean the whole thing should be destroyed or censored. Look at all of the other great discussion in those threads (and this one). If you get rid of every thread that is a potential double-edged sword, then you will eventually find yourself browsing an empty forum. There is no such thing as a perfect safe-space for discussion, and places that claim to be are typically void of interesting discourse. > I decided it would most likely generate the sort of discussion that does not belong on the site. The current thread as well as the two linked threads have plenty of positive discussion. Again, every topic is a double-edged sword. You're going to get people who agree and disagree, people who are serious and others who are trolls. That doesn't mean threads should be completely destroyed. The best course of action here is to flag the offending comments, rather than the entire thread. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698237 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332012
    - novia 8y ago
      > The best course of action here is to flag the offending comments, rather than the entire thread. The best course of action for my mental well-being is to flag the whole thread and move on without reading the comments. Unfortunately I'm already in here, so I am flagging the particularly egregious comments, as well as vouching for the dead comments that I think were unjustly buried. > Just because something gets trolls, doesn't mean the whole thing should be destroyed or censored. One flag doesn't destroy an entire thread. It's a numbers game and I'm adding my vote to the pile. If the thread dies, people who think it is valuable can vouch for it.
      - anonytrary 8y ago
        > The best course of action for my mental well-being is to flag the whole thread and move on without reading the comments. Guidelines: > Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. Your comments here suggest that you have a personal problem with the article. Articles should not be flagged for how their words and numbers make us feel, they should be flagged if they are off-topic, spam, or not intellectually stimulating. This article abides by the rules and thus should not have been flagged by a neutral actor.
freyir 8y ago
The article isn't about politics, and controversial topics are not out of bounds. If you don't like an article, you have the option to ignore it, or even better, contribute your perspective to the conversation. The flag button isn't there to suppress any and all discussion of a topic that you don't personally care for.
- novia 8y ago
  I flagged it AND I'm contributing to the conversation.
yason 8y ago
To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial. How so? It's not about political decisions one way or another but observing a new phenomenon on the market for sex and relationships. There are tons of scientific angles available for approaching the issue. Why is this happening? What has changed? What factors can contribute? Flagging comments such as "that's good, all sex should happen in a marriage anyway" would be contributing to the discussion, flagging the entire topic would not be.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- novia 8y ago
  >> To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial. > How so? It's in the very next sentence. But oh by the way, the author doesn't have a great track record on this issue. https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redistribution-professor-interviewed.html https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redi...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
saagarjha 8y ago
> Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. > Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. I feel like this is on-topic? I feel that the flag button is not there for "I found this uninteresting", because at any given time a significant portion of the articles on the front page are uninteresting to me. I don't go around flagging those because I'm sure others do find it interesting and it's possible to have a valid discussion about it without devolving into flamewars. > See for example the 2014 Isla Vista massacre. FWIW, this was not covered by Hacker News.
dreaded 8y ago
You initially claimed that you flagged the article because it doesn't meet your "lived experiences". When challenged on the validity of that reasoning you abandon that claim and now justify flagging it because it's "political in nature and controversial". The truth is you simply don't like what's being said and would therefor like to suppress it, and lacking a more valid motivation will concoct whatever justification you think will be seen as valid, as you've already demonstrated. By misrepresenting your motivations you've shown that you're acting in bad faith, and because you're acting in bad faith any further justifications you offer should be disregarded.

by novia 8y ago

anonytrary 8y ago

Population dynamics and sexual activity statistics is arguably something that "good hackers would find interesting". If those statistics are changing significantly, then I'd definitely consider that something "that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity". Edit: And to clarify, lots of science can be political, but that doesn't make it not-science. For example, breaking news about a new discovery in climate change projections is inherently political but it is also inherently interesting from an intellectual standpoint. Something purely political and not intellectually interesting to hackers might be news about what's happening in the White House right now. In my opinion, anything that falls under the science category is fair game for this community because plenty of people who are hackers are also very interested in science and technology.

novia 8y ago
Yes climate change is political, but would the comment section to a climate change article on this site be full of the types of comments we see in here? Would it be an actually divisive topic for the users of this site? What I love about Hacker News (usually) is the lack of flame-wars. I know they exist, but they get hidden very quickly. After reading the article in full, and finding it sparse in actual data, I decided it would most likely generate the sort of discussion that does not belong on the site. Edit to add: If it is merely the "population dynamics and sexual activity statistics" that we should be interested in, why not link directly to the study instead of this meandering commentary on it?
- anonytrary 8y ago
  This[0] and this[1] are previous discussions on HN about climate change, with plenty of trolls. Just because something gets trolls, doesn't mean the whole thing should be destroyed or censored. Look at all of the other great discussion in those threads (and this one). If you get rid of every thread that is a potential double-edged sword, then you will eventually find yourself browsing an empty forum. There is no such thing as a perfect safe-space for discussion, and places that claim to be are typically void of interesting discourse. > I decided it would most likely generate the sort of discussion that does not belong on the site. The current thread as well as the two linked threads have plenty of positive discussion. Again, every topic is a double-edged sword. You're going to get people who agree and disagree, people who are serious and others who are trolls. That doesn't mean threads should be completely destroyed. The best course of action here is to flag the offending comments, rather than the entire thread. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698237 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332012
  - novia 8y ago
    > The best course of action here is to flag the offending comments, rather than the entire thread. The best course of action for my mental well-being is to flag the whole thread and move on without reading the comments. Unfortunately I'm already in here, so I am flagging the particularly egregious comments, as well as vouching for the dead comments that I think were unjustly buried. > Just because something gets trolls, doesn't mean the whole thing should be destroyed or censored. One flag doesn't destroy an entire thread. It's a numbers game and I'm adding my vote to the pile. If the thread dies, people who think it is valuable can vouch for it.
    - anonytrary 8y ago
      > The best course of action for my mental well-being is to flag the whole thread and move on without reading the comments. Guidelines: > Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. Your comments here suggest that you have a personal problem with the article. Articles should not be flagged for how their words and numbers make us feel, they should be flagged if they are off-topic, spam, or not intellectually stimulating. This article abides by the rules and thus should not have been flagged by a neutral actor.

freyir 8y ago

The article isn't about politics, and controversial topics are not out of bounds. If you don't like an article, you have the option to ignore it, or even better, contribute your perspective to the conversation. The flag button isn't there to suppress any and all discussion of a topic that you don't personally care for.

novia 8y ago
I flagged it AND I'm contributing to the conversation.

yason 8y ago

To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial. How so? It's not about political decisions one way or another but observing a new phenomenon on the market for sex and relationships. There are tons of scientific angles available for approaching the issue. Why is this happening? What has changed? What factors can contribute? Flagging comments such as "that's good, all sex should happen in a marriage anyway" would be contributing to the discussion, flagging the entire topic would not be.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
novia 8y ago
>> To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial. > How so? It's in the very next sentence. But oh by the way, the author doesn't have a great track record on this issue. https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redistribution-professor-interviewed.html https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redi...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

saagarjha 8y ago

> Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. > Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. I feel like this is on-topic? I feel that the flag button is not there for "I found this uninteresting", because at any given time a significant portion of the articles on the front page are uninteresting to me. I don't go around flagging those because I'm sure others do find it interesting and it's possible to have a valid discussion about it without devolving into flamewars. > See for example the 2014 Isla Vista massacre. FWIW, this was not covered by Hacker News.

dreaded 8y ago

You initially claimed that you flagged the article because it doesn't meet your "lived experiences". When challenged on the validity of that reasoning you abandon that claim and now justify flagging it because it's "political in nature and controversial". The truth is you simply don't like what's being said and would therefor like to suppress it, and lacking a more valid motivation will concoct whatever justification you think will be seen as valid, as you've already demonstrated. By misrepresenting your motivations you've shown that you're acting in bad faith, and because you're acting in bad faith any further justifications you offer should be disregarded.