2 ms·

It’s your club but that seems like a strange policy. Being aware of proposed legislation is the first step for citizens either supporting or opposing it. It’s n

It’s your club but that seems like a strange policy. Being aware of proposed legislation is the first step for citizens either supporting or opposing it. It’s not helpful for deliberative democracy to only see actions after the fact once embedded in law.

dang 6y ago
That is all true, but it's a different question than what should appear on HN's front page, given that front page space is the scarcest resource this community has (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20scarce&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). I'm not saying that no story like this should appear—on the contrary. I'm saying that we should keep our powder dry for the ones that most belong on the front page, and for that to work, they need not to be routine. The default forces of the internet routinely push the most sensational stories to the top, and that's not HN's purpose, so we need to make distinctions. That doesn't mean there are no exceptions, it means that exceptions need to be cases of unusual significance. Hence my question above: is there something of unusual significance in this particular development, or is this more an example of routine political wrangling? I honestly can't tell; that's why I asked. Edit: I've read the article as well as https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expand-bill-barrs-surveillance-powers https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expan... which it points to, and I still can't tell. It's pretty unusual for a story like this to sit in the grey zone instead of teetering to one side or the other, so I hope that's not a trend. Edit 2: I've taken out a lot of general language about HN moderation that I originally included in this comment, because after reading the articles I no longer think that this is a general-moderation case. It's a weird outlier that has scrambled my pattern-matching.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

dang 6y ago

That is all true, but it's a different question than what should appear on HN's front page, given that front page space is the scarcest resource this community has (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20scarce&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). I'm not saying that no story like this should appear—on the contrary. I'm saying that we should keep our powder dry for the ones that most belong on the front page, and for that to work, they need not to be routine. The default forces of the internet routinely push the most sensational stories to the top, and that's not HN's purpose, so we need to make distinctions. That doesn't mean there are no exceptions, it means that exceptions need to be cases of unusual significance. Hence my question above: is there something of unusual significance in this particular development, or is this more an example of routine political wrangling? I honestly can't tell; that's why I asked. Edit: I've read the article as well as https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expand-bill-barrs-surveillance-powers https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-moves-to-expan... which it points to, and I still can't tell. It's pretty unusual for a story like this to sit in the grey zone instead of teetering to one side or the other, so I hope that's not a trend. Edit 2: I've taken out a lot of general language about HN moderation that I originally included in this comment, because after reading the articles I no longer think that this is a general-moderation case. It's a weird outlier that has scrambled my pattern-matching.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]