7 ms·

> I believe it's not moderators job to decide what is a lie and what is not codesushi42 didn't say it was. It said the system you describe still allows lies,

> I believe it's not moderators job to decide what is a lie and what is not codesushi42 didn't say it was. It said the system you describe still allows lies, myths, and misinformation to spread. The only mention of moderators was in the context of chastising the poster who calls the misinformation out. > if you see a lie, write a truthful comment refuting it, that way you can convince people instead of trying to silence The tools you referred to are tools to silence, so you are "trying to silence" every time you flag or downvote a post. As for refuting the misinformation, I regularly see posts doing this downvoted while the misinformation is upvoted[1]. This is particularly true in discussions on contentious topics. Thus, I'm not nearly as certain as you are that these tools would protect HN from a sufficiently dedicated group. [1] At least once, because I downvote it and the comment remains black.

codesushi42 7y ago
Exactly this. HN is a cesspool of misinformation. Whether it comes from people pushing an agenda, or just plain ignorance. I take everything said here with a grain of salt, and fact check everything. Because I have seen some very creative and convincing misinformation here, that when researched doesn't hold up under scrutiny. My point is that people casually browsing this place are going to be infected by the misinformation and spread it to others. All while the mods overfit on whether someone's response wasn't polite enough, which in a lot of cases is biased to begin with. Stack Exchange is a much, MUCH more reliable source of information than the horse shit I see pranced around here on a daily basis. Their moderation system actually works because it empowers knowledgeable users.
- tlb 7y ago
  I don't find this to be the case. Usually, when someone is wrong, they are quickly corrected. So when reading a thread, I rarely come away with an incorrect belief. Maybe some example would help me understand what you mean. Could you link to some clear misinformation on HN that wasn't convincingly refuted elsewhere in the thread?
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Plenty examples here, even with people coming out of the woodwork to support eugenics under false pretenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 Look up some accounts (jlawson) and you will find they consistently post right wing BS here. Or just search HN for eugenics and see all the crazy claims made... Plenty other examples, but due to ignorance, like someone giving a long convincing explanation of the thermodynamics behind the efficiency of steam engines which sounded entirely convincing. But was complete utter horse shit once researched, and no one refuted it. But it was upvoted plenty.
    - tlb 7y ago
      I looked in the places you suggested but none of them seem like cesspools of misinformation. Political opinions from across the right-left spectrum, if presented in a civil and substantive way and without fake facts, are not against the rules here. Extreme opinions tend to get downvoted pretty quickly, though.
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        I guess you didn't look hard enough. Because the top comment is a lie: If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill-health on their children by withholding these technologies is morally wrong) will just fly to Singapore. Even if you could enforce this, not every country will. 5+ standard deviation increases in many traits is on the table Nope, 5+ std deviations is not on the table.
        tlb 7y ago
        You might disapprove of the sentiment, but that does not appear to be a lie. A lie has to be factually incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
        codesushi42 7y ago
dang 7y ago
> The only mention of moderators was in the context of chastising the poster who calls the misinformation out. Obviously we don't chastise users for correcting misinformation. We chastise them for breaking the site guidelines. How could we do otherwise? There's an important insight here. Correcting misinformation is when it's most critical to follow the site guidelines. That's not so easy, because misinformation can be irritating and even triggering. But if you react to it with name-calling, flamewar, personal attack or things like that, then you discredit your comment and—if your position is correct—you discredit the truth. Then you're not only making HN worse, you're making the world worse. The thing to try to remember is that while you may not owe the other commenter any better, you owe the community better, and you owe the truth better. The one who knows more has more responsibility. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20discredit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

codesushi42 7y ago

Exactly this. HN is a cesspool of misinformation. Whether it comes from people pushing an agenda, or just plain ignorance. I take everything said here with a grain of salt, and fact check everything. Because I have seen some very creative and convincing misinformation here, that when researched doesn't hold up under scrutiny. My point is that people casually browsing this place are going to be infected by the misinformation and spread it to others. All while the mods overfit on whether someone's response wasn't polite enough, which in a lot of cases is biased to begin with. Stack Exchange is a much, MUCH more reliable source of information than the horse shit I see pranced around here on a daily basis. Their moderation system actually works because it empowers knowledgeable users.

tlb 7y ago
I don't find this to be the case. Usually, when someone is wrong, they are quickly corrected. So when reading a thread, I rarely come away with an incorrect belief. Maybe some example would help me understand what you mean. Could you link to some clear misinformation on HN that wasn't convincingly refuted elsewhere in the thread?
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Plenty examples here, even with people coming out of the woodwork to support eugenics under false pretenses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542738 Look up some accounts (jlawson) and you will find they consistently post right wing BS here. Or just search HN for eugenics and see all the crazy claims made... Plenty other examples, but due to ignorance, like someone giving a long convincing explanation of the thermodynamics behind the efficiency of steam engines which sounded entirely convincing. But was complete utter horse shit once researched, and no one refuted it. But it was upvoted plenty.
  - tlb 7y ago
    I looked in the places you suggested but none of them seem like cesspools of misinformation. Political opinions from across the right-left spectrum, if presented in a civil and substantive way and without fake facts, are not against the rules here. Extreme opinions tend to get downvoted pretty quickly, though.
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      I guess you didn't look hard enough. Because the top comment is a lie: If you outlaw this, people like me (who think inflicting stupidly and ill-health on their children by withholding these technologies is morally wrong) will just fly to Singapore. Even if you could enforce this, not every country will. 5+ standard deviation increases in many traits is on the table Nope, 5+ std deviations is not on the table.
      - tlb 7y ago
        You might disapprove of the sentiment, but that does not appear to be a lie. A lie has to be factually incorrect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
        codesushi42 7y ago

dang 7y ago

> The only mention of moderators was in the context of chastising the poster who calls the misinformation out. Obviously we don't chastise users for correcting misinformation. We chastise them for breaking the site guidelines. How could we do otherwise? There's an important insight here. Correcting misinformation is when it's most critical to follow the site guidelines. That's not so easy, because misinformation can be irritating and even triggering. But if you react to it with name-calling, flamewar, personal attack or things like that, then you discredit your comment and—if your position is correct—you discredit the truth. Then you're not only making HN worse, you're making the world worse. The thing to try to remember is that while you may not owe the other commenter any better, you owe the community better, and you owe the truth better. The one who knows more has more responsibility. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20discredit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html