8 ms·

Your principles seem to be summed up as: so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is; and t

Your principles seem to be summed up as: so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is; and that the defense of this necessitates a generous presumption of good faith. We must acknowledge that HN carries a substantial degree of influence, and consider how to responsibly wield that influence. The readers here are a lucractive demographic - generally we are an educated, wealthy, and politically engaged group. As propaganda becomes more sophisticated, it's likely - if not inevitable - that it will target us. It's the responsibility of the moderators of our online spaces to protect us from propaganda, else Hacker News is used as a weapon, to ill or to good - a possibility that you must be aware of. Distinguishing between propaganda and genuinely held positions is difficult, and approaches impossible as propaganda technology becomes more sophisticated. For this reason, I think it's reasonable to suggest that certain viewpoints are simply not welcome on Hacker News. There are some easy examples: racist or sexist views being one of them. I presume that someone expressing racist viewpoints, no matter how eloquently stated, is not welcome to do so on Hacker News. Then there are more difficult problems, which stem from a complex web of related judgements. To address these, I suggest reflecting on your own moral principles, and considering what ideals are worth protecting in the face of propaganda. In the case of Hong Kong, the ideals at risk here are the right to self governance. And there's little question that the alternative Hong Kong faces would be tragic - China is demonstrably a country with little freedoms afforded to its people and large-scale human rights violations being carried out all the time. The demonstrators in Hong Kong will not be let off easy for the risks they're taking, should they fail. In short: like it or not, HN is a tool which will be wielded by oppressors, and will likely be an effective tool at that. Identifying oppressors is difficult but identifying the values of oppressors is easier. Also worth note: HN is inextricably linked to YC, which has financial investments in China. If you don't want to be views as having a pro-China bias, you need to put in extra work to remove the foot from your mouth.

peterwwillis 7y ago
Your comment presupposes all propaganda is negative, underhanded, corrupting; it is not. Propaganda is any propagation of doctrines, theories, or causes. For example, HN is a propaganda machine for start-up companies, people hoping to get rich quick, bleeding edge technologies, privacy advocates, the never-ending addiction to banal tech companies and their meaningless products, etc. Other things are propaganda too, like stories about gender equality, climate science, and "considered harmful is considered harmful". You can't try to convince people to act or think a certain way without the propaganda to do it. Propaganda is, by definition, genuinely held positions; just not always your positions. The concept of propaganda is amoral, even if its subject matter is often highly moral. Based on your examples, what you're really concerned about is morality and rules. What are the moral values of HN, and what rules should be imposed to enforce them? What morals are ok, and what aren't, by which people? > Identifying oppressors is difficult but identifying the values of oppressors is easier. Well, let's examine that. On the one hand, you probably disagree with the Chinese Communist Party using this site to try to gain sympathy for its doctrine. On the other hand, you might think it's OK for millennial Americans (who for whatever reason have culturally decided that capitalism sucks, and that some form of ism is the only alternative, if perhaps half-jokingly) to share articles with a similar message. They both may preach communism, or denounce capitalism. Which is OK, and why? Basically, you want to know where the red line is. And that's the problem with moderation: there is no red line. There's a whole lot of blurred colors. You start with a very sensible, good, popular moral position like "no racism or sexism", and then you end up fighting weird angry splinter groups who have decent arguments about what it means to be racist or sexist; maybe you would be to them, or maybe they are to you, but neither of you believe you yourselves are. (Try to explain to the average nerdy fan of The Big Bang Theory that it's probably the most toxically misogynistic show on television, and you might find a heated argument; but is TBBT banned from HN?) The only easy solution is to make a site which is literally dedicated to the morality of a single person - an autocracy. The rules are whatever that person says they are. But since some people don't like that idea (!) what you end up with is a benevolent oligarchy. A few people run things and try to be nice to the users, but basically it's those few people whose morals and values become the de facto rules. Those rules are intentionally fluid and based on interpretation and guidelines, to encourage as many users to use the site as possible, yet provide enough of a LART to keep Eternal September at bay. The end result is that there aren't any definitive morals running the ship, by design. Go look - there is no explicit rule against sexism or racism. That would be too easy to argue. The vagaries of human morality are too loose, so you can't just eliminate what seems simple. You can only plumb the depths, interpret what feels bad, and chip away at it.
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  >Well, let's examine that. On the one hand, you probably disagree with the Chinese Communist Party using this site to try to gain sympathy for its doctrine. On the other hand, you might think it's OK for millennial Americans (who for whatever reason have culturally decided that capitalism sucks, and that some form of ism is the only alternative, if perhaps half-jokingly) to share articles with a similar message. They both may preach communism, or denounce capitalism. Which is OK, and why? No, I think that debating ideologies is fine, and even healthy. I have no love for capitalism and no hatred for communism. But that's not the only thing China represents: communism does not imply the brutality China lays upon its people. >The only easy solution is to make a site which is literally dedicated to the morality of a single person - an autocracy. The rules are whatever that person says they are. But since some people don't like that idea (!) what you end up with is a benevolent oligarchy. A few people run things and try to be nice to the users, but basically it's those few people whose morals and values become the de facto rules. Those rules are intentionally fluid and based on interpretation and guidelines, to encourage as many users to use the site as possible, yet provide enough of a LART to keep Eternal September at bay. I'm not opposed to HN taking such an approach (in fact, I reckon I'm in favor of it), but the mods should be bolder in drawing moral lines (blurred though they may be). They already do this regardless - so they should do it with confidence in their own moral compass. And assuming they do so, then we can use their action (or inaction) as a lens to evaluate our moderators with and so decide whether or not we wish to cast our lot with HN.
bobjordan 7y ago
"In the case of Hong Kong, the ideals at risk here are the right to self-governance." American here using a VPN from China, not an operative. My view after 10 years in China with businesses in China and Hong Kong, is that it is useful to think about Hong Kong similarly to a USA state. It's a state where the people inside can exit into China at will, while all the other people in all the other states in China must get permission to enter Hong Kong. So, its a state where the people living inside have all the benefits of being Chinese, with few of the downsides. But from a bigger picture, Hong Kong is not anymore entitled to complete self-governance apart from China's oversight than California is entitled to act against the US federal government. Very few Americans would support any US State in the Union to exit the Union. And, Chinese nationals do not support it for their own Country's territories. About your extra thoughts that China is "is demonstrably a country with little freedoms afforded to its people". Every place has its majority and minority viewpoint, and what you are saying here is at best a fringe minority viewpoint in China. On the whole, the Chinese majority does not welcome your pity in regards to their systems. They are amazed at the shitshow they see about USA violence and political machinations. They see marches on Portland Oregon with Antifa on the left and whoever on the far right and think, China has it good, and in many ways, they are correct. Violent crime as measured in murders per 100K of population in the USA is a magnitude worse than in China, the murder rate is literally 10x worse in the USA. I've walked down dark streets at night all over working class neighborhoods in Guangdong province and never once felt unsafe. At nighttime, there are huge crowds in public squares, sometimes with hundreds of women dancing coordinated to music, and there is no fear. I've done the same in large cities like Shanghai, going where I please at midnight, with no feeling of danger. That's what they value here and it brings a type of freedom that you can't enjoy in the USA. Chinese do not share the same values as you, and from my view, that's OK.
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  I understand that Chinese values are different from mine, and I appreciate the importance of that. I'm not arguing for, for example, the overthrow of the communist party in mainland China. However, as much as you wouldn't impose American values on China, I wouldn't want to see Chinese values imposed on Hong Kong. HKers clearly do not share those values. Setting aside the HK question, I would also like to point out that there are dozens of countries which are not as violent as America but have governments of the people. I'm writing my comment now from Osaka, Japan, where the streets are clean, the people are safe, there's excellent public transit throughout the country, etc - and the government rules at the pleasure of its people. Edit: because it's important in discussions such as these, I sought out information about you to judge your biases. I found that you're the founder of a company that arguably lives and dies by mainland China having a favorable view of you.
taneq 7y ago
> so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is; and that the defense of this necessitates a generous presumption of good faith Isn't that the point of a discussion forum such as HN? > I think it's reasonable to suggest that certain viewpoints are simply not welcome on Hacker News I disagree that contrary viewpoints "no matter how eloquently stated" should be purged. Let them stand or fall on their merits.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  What about calls to kill all jews, very reasonably and eloquently stated, still welcome? How about calls to have sex with children, still ok with you? What about support and calls for mass shootings, executions and genocide? What happens when supports for these views grow by virtue of them being in people's faces a lot? Plenty of internet communities have been hijacked by these mentalities, usually in some misguided idea about free speech. Giving disgusting bullshit a platform almost axiomatically elevates it, legitimizes it and creates support for it, pretending things are just a marketplace of ideas, and all we have to do is "be civil" is an almost total abdication of responsibility. Edit: how about the people down voting this answer if conversations, conducted civilly and in good faith, should be allowed about topics like this, if you are going to have a stance that nothing should barred, you better be able to think about and discuss what about the worst of the worst, not live in some fantasy land where people don't seriously believe some truly horrific things.
  - sittingnut 7y ago
    do you understand the difference between calls for violence (such as "kill all jews", "have sex with children", etc), and non violent opinion, which may include hateful, racist, sexist speech(such as "jews control media and government", "average iq of various ethnic groups differ", "men and women have different abilities", "trans women are not women", "abortion is murder",etc )?
  - taneq 7y ago
    Are you saying that there are reasonable, persuasive arguments in favour of any of those things you describe?
tptacek 7y ago
This incredibly rude comment will do nothing to reduce oppression anywhere in the world, but I'm sure it made you feel better to write it, and that's all that matters, right?
dang 7y ago
I wouldn't summarize what I said that way at all.
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  Having reviewed your comment several times, I still feel that my representation of it is a good-faith interpretation of what you said. Yours has much more depth and nuance, justifying that perspective and elaborating on how you go about accomplishing it, but I think my summary is an accurate portrayal of your core principles. Can you clarify in what way it's not?
  - dang 7y ago
    I didn't say anything like "so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is". I try to be cautious about not making grand generalizations like that, or even thinking them. They tend to have grand and troublesome consequences. What I wrote was narrowly scoped and is mostly an empirical claim: in the majority of cases when users invoke astroturfing/shillage/spying against others in arguments, there is no evidence to support the accusation and usually evidence to refute it. Because this comes up so frequently, it seems there's some sort of bias (probably a universal one, because I don't think we're wired so differently) that causes users to reach for this mud and throw it at other users, even though they have no basis for it other than that person having an opposing view—which is to say, no basis for it at all. Since there's usually no evidence and yet these accusations are so common and so damaging, the site guidelines ask users not to post them in the threads. At the same time, real abuses exist, so concerned users are invited to email hn@ycombinator.com with links so we can look for evidence. That was the gist of my comment. The rest was an attempt to plead for tolerance by offering an explanation of how HN ends up with so many posts that can seem disingenuous: it follows from the size and diversity of the community. Humans are not wired for anything that big, and HN is an intimate-seeming place that doesn't feel as large or diverse as it really is, so when views show up that are more than an arm's length away from what one is comfortable with, it activates the circuitry for perceiving enemies and invaders. If HN is to thrive in accordance with its value of intellectual curiosity, we all need to work on managing that circuitry in ourselves, and not simply jump to where the limbic system would take us. That's really what the call for evidence is getting at. It requires a person to stop, interrupt the mechanical reaction, invoke the slower and more reflective circuits, and then look more closely at what might really be happening. If we could learn to do that as a community, 99% of the accusations of astroturfing, shilling, and spying against other users would vanish. That would make HN a better place, and would also help clarify which cases really do need investigating and taking care of.
Tomte 7y ago
> Your principles seem to be summed up as: so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is; While I'm generally an admirer of dang and sctb, a variation of this is my criticism, as well: They tend to overemphasize "manners", while being blind to anti-social and trollish behaviour. It's fine to chide me for blowing off steam, I shouldn't do that. But when it is because "the other guy" has behaved and "discussed" very dishonestly, I don't think he should get a pass. At least the whole sub-thread should be deleted, but usually my (wrong, but still rather slight) reaction (like "I find your way of responding dishonest" – not even "I find you dishonest", mind you) is deleted and the dreck that I was subjected to remains. Because he did not use the words "asshole" or "dishonest" and rather cleverly expressed the same in a "clean" way. It just incentivises commenters to get more sneaky, back-handed and dog-whistly. And that is already destroying this community, I feel.
- throawayofcolor 7y ago
  They tend to overemphasize "manners", while being blind to anti-social and trollish behaviour. It just incentivises commenters to get more sneaky, back-handed and dog-whistly I can't express how surprised I am (in a good way) to see this finally addressed and vocalized, because I myself have struggled with a way of putting it to words, and wishing to see others communicating it publicly. Among women and people of color this site has a VERY unfavorable reputation for how our opinions and thoughts are moderated rather strongly because of the frustration we express with dog-whistle arguments that are delicately delivered with kid gloves, while the harbingers of opinions and principles that dehumanize, otherwise, minimize, de-legitimize and/or otherwise ostracize our lived experiences as women and minorities in tech are left alone and allowed to promulgate throughout the rest of the community unmolested. Thank you both to the two previous commenters for giving my frustrations with this moderation style a voice.
  - dang 7y ago
    When you say "moderated" I assume you're talking about the moderators of this site, who are me and sctb. I don't agree with you at all that this is how we moderate HN. In fact, what you describe is something that we both try to be careful not to do. If you're going to accuse us of something so awful, you should supply links to cases where you think we did this. That way we can learn from our mistakes if you're right, and readers can see for themselves if you're not.

peterwwillis 7y ago

Your comment presupposes all propaganda is negative, underhanded, corrupting; it is not. Propaganda is any propagation of doctrines, theories, or causes. For example, HN is a propaganda machine for start-up companies, people hoping to get rich quick, bleeding edge technologies, privacy advocates, the never-ending addiction to banal tech companies and their meaningless products, etc. Other things are propaganda too, like stories about gender equality, climate science, and "considered harmful is considered harmful". You can't try to convince people to act or think a certain way without the propaganda to do it. Propaganda is, by definition, genuinely held positions; just not always your positions. The concept of propaganda is amoral, even if its subject matter is often highly moral. Based on your examples, what you're really concerned about is morality and rules. What are the moral values of HN, and what rules should be imposed to enforce them? What morals are ok, and what aren't, by which people? > Identifying oppressors is difficult but identifying the values of oppressors is easier. Well, let's examine that. On the one hand, you probably disagree with the Chinese Communist Party using this site to try to gain sympathy for its doctrine. On the other hand, you might think it's OK for millennial Americans (who for whatever reason have culturally decided that capitalism sucks, and that some form of ism is the only alternative, if perhaps half-jokingly) to share articles with a similar message. They both may preach communism, or denounce capitalism. Which is OK, and why? Basically, you want to know where the red line is. And that's the problem with moderation: there is no red line. There's a whole lot of blurred colors. You start with a very sensible, good, popular moral position like "no racism or sexism", and then you end up fighting weird angry splinter groups who have decent arguments about what it means to be racist or sexist; maybe you would be to them, or maybe they are to you, but neither of you believe you yourselves are. (Try to explain to the average nerdy fan of The Big Bang Theory that it's probably the most toxically misogynistic show on television, and you might find a heated argument; but is TBBT banned from HN?) The only easy solution is to make a site which is literally dedicated to the morality of a single person - an autocracy. The rules are whatever that person says they are. But since some people don't like that idea (!) what you end up with is a benevolent oligarchy. A few people run things and try to be nice to the users, but basically it's those few people whose morals and values become the de facto rules. Those rules are intentionally fluid and based on interpretation and guidelines, to encourage as many users to use the site as possible, yet provide enough of a LART to keep Eternal September at bay. The end result is that there aren't any definitive morals running the ship, by design. Go look - there is no explicit rule against sexism or racism. That would be too easy to argue. The vagaries of human morality are too loose, so you can't just eliminate what seems simple. You can only plumb the depths, interpret what feels bad, and chip away at it.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
>Well, let's examine that. On the one hand, you probably disagree with the Chinese Communist Party using this site to try to gain sympathy for its doctrine. On the other hand, you might think it's OK for millennial Americans (who for whatever reason have culturally decided that capitalism sucks, and that some form of ism is the only alternative, if perhaps half-jokingly) to share articles with a similar message. They both may preach communism, or denounce capitalism. Which is OK, and why? No, I think that debating ideologies is fine, and even healthy. I have no love for capitalism and no hatred for communism. But that's not the only thing China represents: communism does not imply the brutality China lays upon its people. >The only easy solution is to make a site which is literally dedicated to the morality of a single person - an autocracy. The rules are whatever that person says they are. But since some people don't like that idea (!) what you end up with is a benevolent oligarchy. A few people run things and try to be nice to the users, but basically it's those few people whose morals and values become the de facto rules. Those rules are intentionally fluid and based on interpretation and guidelines, to encourage as many users to use the site as possible, yet provide enough of a LART to keep Eternal September at bay. I'm not opposed to HN taking such an approach (in fact, I reckon I'm in favor of it), but the mods should be bolder in drawing moral lines (blurred though they may be). They already do this regardless - so they should do it with confidence in their own moral compass. And assuming they do so, then we can use their action (or inaction) as a lens to evaluate our moderators with and so decide whether or not we wish to cast our lot with HN.

bobjordan 7y ago

"In the case of Hong Kong, the ideals at risk here are the right to self-governance." American here using a VPN from China, not an operative. My view after 10 years in China with businesses in China and Hong Kong, is that it is useful to think about Hong Kong similarly to a USA state. It's a state where the people inside can exit into China at will, while all the other people in all the other states in China must get permission to enter Hong Kong. So, its a state where the people living inside have all the benefits of being Chinese, with few of the downsides. But from a bigger picture, Hong Kong is not anymore entitled to complete self-governance apart from China's oversight than California is entitled to act against the US federal government. Very few Americans would support any US State in the Union to exit the Union. And, Chinese nationals do not support it for their own Country's territories. About your extra thoughts that China is "is demonstrably a country with little freedoms afforded to its people". Every place has its majority and minority viewpoint, and what you are saying here is at best a fringe minority viewpoint in China. On the whole, the Chinese majority does not welcome your pity in regards to their systems. They are amazed at the shitshow they see about USA violence and political machinations. They see marches on Portland Oregon with Antifa on the left and whoever on the far right and think, China has it good, and in many ways, they are correct. Violent crime as measured in murders per 100K of population in the USA is a magnitude worse than in China, the murder rate is literally 10x worse in the USA. I've walked down dark streets at night all over working class neighborhoods in Guangdong province and never once felt unsafe. At nighttime, there are huge crowds in public squares, sometimes with hundreds of women dancing coordinated to music, and there is no fear. I've done the same in large cities like Shanghai, going where I please at midnight, with no feeling of danger. That's what they value here and it brings a type of freedom that you can't enjoy in the USA. Chinese do not share the same values as you, and from my view, that's OK.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
I understand that Chinese values are different from mine, and I appreciate the importance of that. I'm not arguing for, for example, the overthrow of the communist party in mainland China. However, as much as you wouldn't impose American values on China, I wouldn't want to see Chinese values imposed on Hong Kong. HKers clearly do not share those values. Setting aside the HK question, I would also like to point out that there are dozens of countries which are not as violent as America but have governments of the people. I'm writing my comment now from Osaka, Japan, where the streets are clean, the people are safe, there's excellent public transit throughout the country, etc - and the government rules at the pleasure of its people. Edit: because it's important in discussions such as these, I sought out information about you to judge your biases. I found that you're the founder of a company that arguably lives and dies by mainland China having a favorable view of you.

taneq 7y ago

> so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is; and that the defense of this necessitates a generous presumption of good faith Isn't that the point of a discussion forum such as HN? > I think it's reasonable to suggest that certain viewpoints are simply not welcome on Hacker News I disagree that contrary viewpoints "no matter how eloquently stated" should be purged. Let them stand or fall on their merits.

throwaway2048 7y ago
What about calls to kill all jews, very reasonably and eloquently stated, still welcome? How about calls to have sex with children, still ok with you? What about support and calls for mass shootings, executions and genocide? What happens when supports for these views grow by virtue of them being in people's faces a lot? Plenty of internet communities have been hijacked by these mentalities, usually in some misguided idea about free speech. Giving disgusting bullshit a platform almost axiomatically elevates it, legitimizes it and creates support for it, pretending things are just a marketplace of ideas, and all we have to do is "be civil" is an almost total abdication of responsibility. Edit: how about the people down voting this answer if conversations, conducted civilly and in good faith, should be allowed about topics like this, if you are going to have a stance that nothing should barred, you better be able to think about and discuss what about the worst of the worst, not live in some fantasy land where people don't seriously believe some truly horrific things.
- sittingnut 7y ago
  do you understand the difference between calls for violence (such as "kill all jews", "have sex with children", etc), and non violent opinion, which may include hateful, racist, sexist speech(such as "jews control media and government", "average iq of various ethnic groups differ", "men and women have different abilities", "trans women are not women", "abortion is murder",etc )?
- taneq 7y ago
  Are you saying that there are reasonable, persuasive arguments in favour of any of those things you describe?

tptacek 7y ago

This incredibly rude comment will do nothing to reduce oppression anywhere in the world, but I'm sure it made you feel better to write it, and that's all that matters, right?

dang 7y ago

I wouldn't summarize what I said that way at all.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
Having reviewed your comment several times, I still feel that my representation of it is a good-faith interpretation of what you said. Yours has much more depth and nuance, justifying that perspective and elaborating on how you go about accomplishing it, but I think my summary is an accurate portrayal of your core principles. Can you clarify in what way it's not?
- dang 7y ago
  I didn't say anything like "so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is". I try to be cautious about not making grand generalizations like that, or even thinking them. They tend to have grand and troublesome consequences. What I wrote was narrowly scoped and is mostly an empirical claim: in the majority of cases when users invoke astroturfing/shillage/spying against others in arguments, there is no evidence to support the accusation and usually evidence to refute it. Because this comes up so frequently, it seems there's some sort of bias (probably a universal one, because I don't think we're wired so differently) that causes users to reach for this mud and throw it at other users, even though they have no basis for it other than that person having an opposing view—which is to say, no basis for it at all. Since there's usually no evidence and yet these accusations are so common and so damaging, the site guidelines ask users not to post them in the threads. At the same time, real abuses exist, so concerned users are invited to email hn@ycombinator.com with links so we can look for evidence. That was the gist of my comment. The rest was an attempt to plead for tolerance by offering an explanation of how HN ends up with so many posts that can seem disingenuous: it follows from the size and diversity of the community. Humans are not wired for anything that big, and HN is an intimate-seeming place that doesn't feel as large or diverse as it really is, so when views show up that are more than an arm's length away from what one is comfortable with, it activates the circuitry for perceiving enemies and invaders. If HN is to thrive in accordance with its value of intellectual curiosity, we all need to work on managing that circuitry in ourselves, and not simply jump to where the limbic system would take us. That's really what the call for evidence is getting at. It requires a person to stop, interrupt the mechanical reaction, invoke the slower and more reflective circuits, and then look more closely at what might really be happening. If we could learn to do that as a community, 99% of the accusations of astroturfing, shilling, and spying against other users would vanish. That would make HN a better place, and would also help clarify which cases really do need investigating and taking care of.

Tomte 7y ago

> Your principles seem to be summed up as: so long as someone is speaking their opinion respectfully and in good faith, it matters not what that opinion is; While I'm generally an admirer of dang and sctb, a variation of this is my criticism, as well: They tend to overemphasize "manners", while being blind to anti-social and trollish behaviour. It's fine to chide me for blowing off steam, I shouldn't do that. But when it is because "the other guy" has behaved and "discussed" very dishonestly, I don't think he should get a pass. At least the whole sub-thread should be deleted, but usually my (wrong, but still rather slight) reaction (like "I find your way of responding dishonest" – not even "I find you dishonest", mind you) is deleted and the dreck that I was subjected to remains. Because he did not use the words "asshole" or "dishonest" and rather cleverly expressed the same in a "clean" way. It just incentivises commenters to get more sneaky, back-handed and dog-whistly. And that is already destroying this community, I feel.

throawayofcolor 7y ago
They tend to overemphasize "manners", while being blind to anti-social and trollish behaviour. It just incentivises commenters to get more sneaky, back-handed and dog-whistly I can't express how surprised I am (in a good way) to see this finally addressed and vocalized, because I myself have struggled with a way of putting it to words, and wishing to see others communicating it publicly. Among women and people of color this site has a VERY unfavorable reputation for how our opinions and thoughts are moderated rather strongly because of the frustration we express with dog-whistle arguments that are delicately delivered with kid gloves, while the harbingers of opinions and principles that dehumanize, otherwise, minimize, de-legitimize and/or otherwise ostracize our lived experiences as women and minorities in tech are left alone and allowed to promulgate throughout the rest of the community unmolested. Thank you both to the two previous commenters for giving my frustrations with this moderation style a voice.
- dang 7y ago
  When you say "moderated" I assume you're talking about the moderators of this site, who are me and sctb. I don't agree with you at all that this is how we moderate HN. In fact, what you describe is something that we both try to be careful not to do. If you're going to accuse us of something so awful, you should supply links to cases where you think we did this. That way we can learn from our mistakes if you're right, and readers can see for themselves if you're not.