4 ms·

It's really ironic to see HN posters staking out bold claims about the value of totally "uncensored" platforms...in a thread with dozens of dead, hidden comment

It's really ironic to see HN posters staking out bold claims about the value of totally "uncensored" platforms...in a thread with dozens of dead, hidden comments, on a message board subject to heavy-handed, arbitrary and unaccountable moderation.

chasd00 8y ago
Moderation isn't really censorship IMO, if a comment was deleted that would be censorship. Or, if you were prevented from reading downvoted comments then I would qualify that as censorship as well. It's subjective in some ways which makes the discussion complicated.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  HN moderators absolutely remove comments and threads.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    Sure, but HN isn't a large part of the internet. Wanting some uncensored places doesn't mean there shouldn't be curated places.
  - chasd00 8y ago
    that qualifies as censorship in my book.
  - dang 8y ago
    That's a slippery statement to respond to because "remove" can mean a lot of different things. chasd00 used the clearer word "deleted", which is actually precisely what we don't do. I can think of four removeyish things that happen to comments and threads: (1) downweighting of rank; (2) collapsing by default; (3) killing (marking [dead]); (4) deleting altogether. Moderators and software do the first three. We never do #4, except when the author asks us to, or—exceedingly rarely—when our attorneys tell us we have to (less than half a dozen times in ten years, and we push to avoid it, except one time when an HN user was exposed). In cases 1, 2, and 3, nothing is deleted. Anybody can still read everything if they want to. They can read #1 by scrolling; #2 by expanding a subthread; #3 by setting "showdead" to "yes" in their profile. Are those removal? censorship? Sure, if you like—people use those words to express a feeling. But deletion, in the sense of "you used to be able to read something but now you can't", is a question not of feeling but of fact, and the fact is we don't do that.
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      In case it wasn't clear: I don't have a problem with the moderation on HN. But elsewhere in this same thread we have HN users denouncing Mozilla's good-faith efforts to reduce harassment and fake news on the internet as "censorship", so you'll forgive me for not parsing the narrow distinctions between different varieties of "no longer visible to 99% of users".
      - dang 8y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I don't think these are narrow distinctions. To see why, try this simple thought experiment: imagine what would happen if we removed the "showdead" option and simply made all dead comments permanently unreadable. There would be a huge uproar in the community—a scandal to end all scandals.
dang 8y ago
> heavy-handed It's "heavy-handed" when there's too much and "cesspool" when there's not enough. There are as many definitions of enough as HN readers. > arbitrary https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > unaccountable You must not know what it's like to get flamed by this community if you think that!

chasd00 8y ago

Moderation isn't really censorship IMO, if a comment was deleted that would be censorship. Or, if you were prevented from reading downvoted comments then I would qualify that as censorship as well. It's subjective in some ways which makes the discussion complicated.

ForHackernews 8y ago
HN moderators absolutely remove comments and threads.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Sure, but HN isn't a large part of the internet. Wanting some uncensored places doesn't mean there shouldn't be curated places.
- chasd00 8y ago
  that qualifies as censorship in my book.
- dang 8y ago
  That's a slippery statement to respond to because "remove" can mean a lot of different things. chasd00 used the clearer word "deleted", which is actually precisely what we don't do. I can think of four removeyish things that happen to comments and threads: (1) downweighting of rank; (2) collapsing by default; (3) killing (marking [dead]); (4) deleting altogether. Moderators and software do the first three. We never do #4, except when the author asks us to, or—exceedingly rarely—when our attorneys tell us we have to (less than half a dozen times in ten years, and we push to avoid it, except one time when an HN user was exposed). In cases 1, 2, and 3, nothing is deleted. Anybody can still read everything if they want to. They can read #1 by scrolling; #2 by expanding a subthread; #3 by setting "showdead" to "yes" in their profile. Are those removal? censorship? Sure, if you like—people use those words to express a feeling. But deletion, in the sense of "you used to be able to read something but now you can't", is a question not of feeling but of fact, and the fact is we don't do that.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    In case it wasn't clear: I don't have a problem with the moderation on HN. But elsewhere in this same thread we have HN users denouncing Mozilla's good-faith efforts to reduce harassment and fake news on the internet as "censorship", so you'll forgive me for not parsing the narrow distinctions between different varieties of "no longer visible to 99% of users".
    - dang 8y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I don't think these are narrow distinctions. To see why, try this simple thought experiment: imagine what would happen if we removed the "showdead" option and simply made all dead comments permanently unreadable. There would be a huge uproar in the community—a scandal to end all scandals.

dang 8y ago

> heavy-handed It's "heavy-handed" when there's too much and "cesspool" when there's not enough. There are as many definitions of enough as HN readers. > arbitrary https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > unaccountable You must not know what it's like to get flamed by this community if you think that!