5 ms·

Please explain the problem with my comment on slavery. The first part is factually accurate, the second is a valid opinion to express. I was downvoted, why? Y

Please explain the problem with my comment on slavery. The first part is factually accurate, the second is a valid opinion to express. I was downvoted, why? You know what whatever. I know better than to ask HN moderation for any sort of transparency or any dedication to actually fostering discussion vs just reinforcing the particularly awful groupthink that dominates this place.

unapologetic 7y ago
oh look, downvoted again. The downvoting system on this site is a really broken by design sort of feature. It's entirely just a manner to ensure the groupthink stays on track.
dang 7y ago
Factual accuracy isn't enough to make a comment substantive, and the point about "wage slavery not being much better" is an empty cliché. We're looking for thoughtful discussion here, not throwaway lines. I've posted thousands of comments explaining HN moderation—probably tens of thousands, in fact—so I'll have to differ with you on it lacking "any sort of transparency". What would you like to know?
- unapologetic 7y ago
  > What would you like to know? What are the actual rules? You are the most arbitrary and least transparent mod I've ever dealt with. You wield the word "unsubstantive" as a cudgel. You seemingly only hold the goal of stifling discussion that might be against the accepted HN positions. The result is board that yes, does mostly lack flame wars. It's also bland and processed and almost impossible to contribute to, and I lay the blame on that squarely on you. The very poor downvote system does not help. Restricting downvotes to high karma users just lets a handful of people dominate discussion. > "wage slavery not being much better" is an empty cliché 7 million+ working poor. Millions more one unexpected expense away from financial ruin. "empty cliche". Also could explain to me why this > > We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power. is fine. This response > No we don't, that is called slavery. is fine. But my post reaches the bar of unsubstantive flamebait.
  - unapologetic 7y ago
    No response and more downvotes. Exactly what I expected.
    - dang 7y ago
      I didn't see your response till now, and the downvotes were from other users.
      - unapologetic 7y ago
        > downvotes were from other users. Well of course they were. High karma users get to decide what is allowed on HN. It's a pretty bad system.
  - dang 7y ago
    I asked what you wanted to know, but reading this response, it doesn't seem like you want to know things so much as to fulminate against HN and how it is moderated. I'm sorry you don't like it, and if I saw a path from here to maybe getting you to like it better, I'd be happy to try. But I'm not seeing that yet. It takes a ton of time and energy to answer posts like this, and that investment only makes sense when there's a visible modicum of good faith to begin with—otherwise it just results in twice as much fulmination, which helps nothing, and takes resources away from helping other users. I can take a crack at replying to your question about those specific comments though. A comment that said only "We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power" would be lame and unsubstantive, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21983921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21983921 went on to say other things that made for a thoughtful comment, though the generic ideological topic (unions-good-or-bad) is a bad one for HN. I don't see why we would moderate a comment like that. The reply "No we don't, that is called slavery." is lame and pedantic, but I wouldn't call it flamebait. That is the contrarian dynamic which can't resist pointing out a logical flaw in something somebody said. HN has this all over the place, as does everywhere else ("someone is wrong on the internet"...) They are low-quality comments but they don't typically start flamewars unless there is some other baity element in there. You, on the other hand, have been posting obviously flamebaity and ideological battle comments as well as fuming about "groupthink" and "wrongthink" and downvoting and how awful everything here is. You might find HN less "impossible to contribute to" if you took its intended spirit to heart. You could start with trying for thoughtful conversation and assuming good faith, as well as the rest of what https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ask.

unapologetic 7y ago

oh look, downvoted again. The downvoting system on this site is a really broken by design sort of feature. It's entirely just a manner to ensure the groupthink stays on track.

dang 7y ago

Factual accuracy isn't enough to make a comment substantive, and the point about "wage slavery not being much better" is an empty cliché. We're looking for thoughtful discussion here, not throwaway lines. I've posted thousands of comments explaining HN moderation—probably tens of thousands, in fact—so I'll have to differ with you on it lacking "any sort of transparency". What would you like to know?

unapologetic 7y ago
> What would you like to know? What are the actual rules? You are the most arbitrary and least transparent mod I've ever dealt with. You wield the word "unsubstantive" as a cudgel. You seemingly only hold the goal of stifling discussion that might be against the accepted HN positions. The result is board that yes, does mostly lack flame wars. It's also bland and processed and almost impossible to contribute to, and I lay the blame on that squarely on you. The very poor downvote system does not help. Restricting downvotes to high karma users just lets a handful of people dominate discussion. > "wage slavery not being much better" is an empty cliché 7 million+ working poor. Millions more one unexpected expense away from financial ruin. "empty cliche". Also could explain to me why this > > We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power. is fine. This response > No we don't, that is called slavery. is fine. But my post reaches the bar of unsubstantive flamebait.
- unapologetic 7y ago
  No response and more downvotes. Exactly what I expected.
  - dang 7y ago
    I didn't see your response till now, and the downvotes were from other users.
    - unapologetic 7y ago
      > downvotes were from other users. Well of course they were. High karma users get to decide what is allowed on HN. It's a pretty bad system.
- dang 7y ago
  I asked what you wanted to know, but reading this response, it doesn't seem like you want to know things so much as to fulminate against HN and how it is moderated. I'm sorry you don't like it, and if I saw a path from here to maybe getting you to like it better, I'd be happy to try. But I'm not seeing that yet. It takes a ton of time and energy to answer posts like this, and that investment only makes sense when there's a visible modicum of good faith to begin with—otherwise it just results in twice as much fulmination, which helps nothing, and takes resources away from helping other users. I can take a crack at replying to your question about those specific comments though. A comment that said only "We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power" would be lame and unsubstantive, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21983921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21983921 went on to say other things that made for a thoughtful comment, though the generic ideological topic (unions-good-or-bad) is a bad one for HN. I don't see why we would moderate a comment like that. The reply "No we don't, that is called slavery." is lame and pedantic, but I wouldn't call it flamebait. That is the contrarian dynamic which can't resist pointing out a logical flaw in something somebody said. HN has this all over the place, as does everywhere else ("someone is wrong on the internet"...) They are low-quality comments but they don't typically start flamewars unless there is some other baity element in there. You, on the other hand, have been posting obviously flamebaity and ideological battle comments as well as fuming about "groupthink" and "wrongthink" and downvoting and how awful everything here is. You might find HN less "impossible to contribute to" if you took its intended spirit to heart. You could start with trying for thoughtful conversation and assuming good faith, as well as the rest of what https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ask.