4 ms·

Doesn't that apply to the submission about Atwood, though? It seems to me the "political flamebait" rule is applied rather selectively on HN.

pvg 7y ago
No. Work with political implications and articles about it are just that, not 'flamebait'. 'Old lady I disagree with lol' is "political flamebait" only through an exceptionally stoic application of the principle of charity.
- pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
  I honestly don't understand the distinction? The article is legit, because somehow it has authority by being published in a random media outlet? Is that it? Whereas my opinion is "flamebait" because I don't have authority? Yes, I disagree with her. Not because of her old age, but because she seriously claimed the scenario of Handmaid's Tale was near. There were people demonstrating in Handmaid's Tale costumes, and she was cheering them on. If anything, THAT is "political flamebait" - claiming we are entering Handmaid's Tale territory. It was and is ridiculous (unless you believe fundamentalist Islam will take over eventually, which for PC reasons I assume we don't), and that is why I don't hold much stock in her writings anymore. Not because of her old age. And the article is applauding her for "political flamebait", so by extension, it pretty much also is "political flamebait". That's my opinion anyway. But I'm sure it will be considered "political flamebait" by HN.
  - pvg 7y ago
    The distinction is the article is some personal recollections about an author whose, you know, actual literary work many (including plenty who don't agree with her) consider important and your comment is a generic dismissal barely even related to said article. As distinctions go, it doesn't seem like a very difficult one to make.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      So it's wrong not because it's political but because it's "generic"? Or because you believe it's a poor argument? Those aren't against HN guidelines. "Political flamebait" seems to involve in no small part disagreement withtm the majority.
      - dang 7y ago
        Generic tangents are indeed against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and there's a long body of explanations about why: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... If you take a look at that and there's still something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is. It's important that moderation based on "political flamebait" not simply reduce to the political preferences of the moderators. We work consciously at that, and have years of practice. I don't think there's any political position that we haven't moderated (and even banned) users for expressing in ways that break the site guidelines. One dynamic that affects this is that when people are disagreeing with the majority, they often feel defensive, which causes them to lash out more in ways that break the site rules more. Then we moderate them for that, which makes them sure that they're being moderated because of their views, which makes them more defensive and lash out even more. This is a tricky one. 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...
    - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
      What about my "dismissal" is generic? I gave a specific reason for my dismissal. "Ok Boomer" or "she is old" would have been generic, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't mention her age at all.
      - pvg 7y ago
        I didn't mention her age at all. "I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age" is about half your comment.
IAmEveryone 7y ago
It takes a certain amount of myopia to reduce the work of an acclaimed author of 60 years to just whatever her position on your favourite President is.
- pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
  It's not about Trump, it is about claiming the US is close to devolving into the state of handmaid's tale. I don't know how many people here have read it (the book, I mean). I have read it. It is a ridiculous claim.
dang 7y ago
How to handle politics on HN is a hard question. We've worked out an answer over the years that derives from the site guidelines, is not rooted in any particular politics, and so far seems to be stable. To see why it's a hard question, look at the two extremes of the solution space. One would be to ban every topic that you find politically provocative—i.e. that anybody finds politically provocative, since there's no reason to privilege one user over others. That would exclude most stories that get posted here. Certainly everything about economics, history, philosophy, literature, city planning, etc., but also most stories about business and industry. Even many stories that appear purely technical would have to go. Probably everything would, once people got done being provoked by what remained. As some are fond of pointing out, everything is political when you get down to it. The other extreme would be to allow every political topic and all escalations and flamewars. That would turn this place into scorched earth and kill it as a site for intellectual curiosity, its mandate (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Since both extremes are impossible for HN, we need to draw a line somewhere. Where should it be? If we're optimizing for intellectual curiosity, we have to cast a wide net, because curiosity likes to meander. Any topic that supports intellectual curiosity is ok, even if it has political overlap. The topics that aren't ok are the ones that are (a) purely political, (b) purely sensational, (c) have inevitably turned into flamewars in the past. (If a thread does turn into a flamewar, we moderate it, but that isn't necessarily an on-topicness issue per se.) What about stories that don't gratify your curiosity? Well, that's always the case, in the sense that no one likes every story and no story is liked by everyone. It suffices to gratify curiosity for some segment of the audience. If you run into one that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of others to read. If you run out, the 'past' link in the top bar is guaranteed to find popular threads that you missed. And if a submission really breaks the site guidelines, you can flag it. What's not ok is to start posting comments in the thread from a place of provocation rather than curiosity. That's not in the spirit of HN and the guidelines ask you not to. All these concepts require interpretation, so any line we draw is fuzzy. Other moderators might make different calls. But the OP is obviously on topic by that standard, and while I understand how it can appear that we apply the rules selectively, I'd caution against leaping to a belief in moderation bias motivated by secret political preferences (inevitably opposed to your own of course! See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870). All political sides get moderated and/or not moderated at times. When it comes to politics, the mods do something for everyone to dislike—which unfortunately distorts how people perceive moderation (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). If you see a case that violates this standard, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything on HN. The second-likeliest explanation is that we thought it over and came up with some reason that is based on the site guidelines. Sometimes that leads to counterintuitive places. People are always welcome to ask. If that's not enough, there are plenty of prior explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... Take a look, and if there's still something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is.

pvg 7y ago

No. Work with political implications and articles about it are just that, not 'flamebait'. 'Old lady I disagree with lol' is "political flamebait" only through an exceptionally stoic application of the principle of charity.

pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
I honestly don't understand the distinction? The article is legit, because somehow it has authority by being published in a random media outlet? Is that it? Whereas my opinion is "flamebait" because I don't have authority? Yes, I disagree with her. Not because of her old age, but because she seriously claimed the scenario of Handmaid's Tale was near. There were people demonstrating in Handmaid's Tale costumes, and she was cheering them on. If anything, THAT is "political flamebait" - claiming we are entering Handmaid's Tale territory. It was and is ridiculous (unless you believe fundamentalist Islam will take over eventually, which for PC reasons I assume we don't), and that is why I don't hold much stock in her writings anymore. Not because of her old age. And the article is applauding her for "political flamebait", so by extension, it pretty much also is "political flamebait". That's my opinion anyway. But I'm sure it will be considered "political flamebait" by HN.
- pvg 7y ago
  The distinction is the article is some personal recollections about an author whose, you know, actual literary work many (including plenty who don't agree with her) consider important and your comment is a generic dismissal barely even related to said article. As distinctions go, it doesn't seem like a very difficult one to make.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    So it's wrong not because it's political but because it's "generic"? Or because you believe it's a poor argument? Those aren't against HN guidelines. "Political flamebait" seems to involve in no small part disagreement withtm the majority.
    - dang 7y ago
      Generic tangents are indeed against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and there's a long body of explanations about why: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... If you take a look at that and there's still something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is. It's important that moderation based on "political flamebait" not simply reduce to the political preferences of the moderators. We work consciously at that, and have years of practice. I don't think there's any political position that we haven't moderated (and even banned) users for expressing in ways that break the site guidelines. One dynamic that affects this is that when people are disagreeing with the majority, they often feel defensive, which causes them to lash out more in ways that break the site rules more. Then we moderate them for that, which makes them sure that they're being moderated because of their views, which makes them more defensive and lash out even more. This is a tricky one. 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...
  - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
    What about my "dismissal" is generic? I gave a specific reason for my dismissal. "Ok Boomer" or "she is old" would have been generic, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't mention her age at all.
    - pvg 7y ago
      I didn't mention her age at all. "I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age" is about half your comment.

IAmEveryone 7y ago

It takes a certain amount of myopia to reduce the work of an acclaimed author of 60 years to just whatever her position on your favourite President is.

pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
It's not about Trump, it is about claiming the US is close to devolving into the state of handmaid's tale. I don't know how many people here have read it (the book, I mean). I have read it. It is a ridiculous claim.

dang 7y ago

How to handle politics on HN is a hard question. We've worked out an answer over the years that derives from the site guidelines, is not rooted in any particular politics, and so far seems to be stable. To see why it's a hard question, look at the two extremes of the solution space. One would be to ban every topic that you find politically provocative—i.e. that anybody finds politically provocative, since there's no reason to privilege one user over others. That would exclude most stories that get posted here. Certainly everything about economics, history, philosophy, literature, city planning, etc., but also most stories about business and industry. Even many stories that appear purely technical would have to go. Probably everything would, once people got done being provoked by what remained. As some are fond of pointing out, everything is political when you get down to it. The other extreme would be to allow every political topic and all escalations and flamewars. That would turn this place into scorched earth and kill it as a site for intellectual curiosity, its mandate (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Since both extremes are impossible for HN, we need to draw a line somewhere. Where should it be? If we're optimizing for intellectual curiosity, we have to cast a wide net, because curiosity likes to meander. Any topic that supports intellectual curiosity is ok, even if it has political overlap. The topics that aren't ok are the ones that are (a) purely political, (b) purely sensational, (c) have inevitably turned into flamewars in the past. (If a thread does turn into a flamewar, we moderate it, but that isn't necessarily an on-topicness issue per se.) What about stories that don't gratify your curiosity? Well, that's always the case, in the sense that no one likes every story and no story is liked by everyone. It suffices to gratify curiosity for some segment of the audience. If you run into one that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of others to read. If you run out, the 'past' link in the top bar is guaranteed to find popular threads that you missed. And if a submission really breaks the site guidelines, you can flag it. What's not ok is to start posting comments in the thread from a place of provocation rather than curiosity. That's not in the spirit of HN and the guidelines ask you not to. All these concepts require interpretation, so any line we draw is fuzzy. Other moderators might make different calls. But the OP is obviously on topic by that standard, and while I understand how it can appear that we apply the rules selectively, I'd caution against leaping to a belief in moderation bias motivated by secret political preferences (inevitably opposed to your own of course! See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870). All political sides get moderated and/or not moderated at times. When it comes to politics, the mods do something for everyone to dislike—which unfortunately distorts how people perceive moderation (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). If you see a case that violates this standard, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything on HN. The second-likeliest explanation is that we thought it over and came up with some reason that is based on the site guidelines. Sometimes that leads to counterintuitive places. People are always welcome to ask. If that's not enough, there are plenty of prior explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... Take a look, and if there's still something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is.