3 ms·

I think this is a toxic rule to have. Baseless claims don't help anything, but telling people not to talk about something because it might make the site look

I think this is a toxic rule to have. Baseless claims don't help anything, but telling people not to talk about something because it might make the site look bad is gross. It would be much better to show useful statistics to convince people that bots are kept to a minimum.

striking 6y ago
It more than "looks bad", it actively stifles conversation and keeps it at probably around the "ad hominem" tier of disagreement (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html). I think even if you were to present statistics of some kind, some people might not consider it enough and ask for some different contrived set, on and on, forever. If you think something's really wrong, you email the mods about it. Otherwise you get in this exact meta-discussion land about what is astroturfing, what are accusations, and so on. And then you get threads that distract from meaningful conversations, on and on, forever. Maybe we could all just try to discuss the article and related comments by refuting/agreeing with their central points. It would be less boring than seeing the same metadiscussion and flailing forever. (In that vein, I won't be replying to this comment further) edit: for those left wanting, take a look at the words of 'dang: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by...
- BubRoss 6y ago
  > It more than "looks bad", it actively stifles conversation and keeps it at probably around the "ad hominem" tier of disagreement If it happens a lot and without a given reason it certainly does, but it isn't such a black and white issue that it has to be stopped at all costs. When someone points out very suspicious patterns over multiple names, comments, similar threads that are more likely to have astroturfing or bots etc. and mods pop in to say not to talk about astroturfing and bots because it doesn't happen, that's not helping keep the site to a higher standard. I don't doubt it is a priority and people are working on it, and I don't think the reply here that has no examples is worthwhile, but an all or nothing attitude doesn't help, because it is the reality of the internet.
donw 6y ago
HN's moderation team has earned that trust.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  Do you have any examples of this? Have there been any significant instances of this? I’m not saying that the moderation team is not good, but we should be allowed to question and discuss the possibility that they are not.
  - striking 6y ago
    https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by...
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      Derp. Ya know if I had thought about my question a little more I could have found the answer on my own. Thank you!
      - donw 6y ago
        No worries, we’ve all asked questions that can be resolved by a search at some point. :)
simias 6y ago
That's not how the burden of proof works. It's also not so much about trying not to make "the site look bad", it's more that it generally leads to baseless witchhunts and flame wars. HN has an advantage over Twitter and other social networks: posts are supposed to be insightful instead of merely pictures of cats or people doing funny tricks. As a result we can criticize posts based on their intrinsic values instead of having to go meta and wonder about the intentions of the person posting them. If a bot manages to posts dozens of interesting stories that make it up to the top of the front page every day I say we keep it...
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  Would you keep a bot that just massively upvote things so that they reached frontpage, then rented to the higest PR firm bidder?

striking 6y ago

It more than "looks bad", it actively stifles conversation and keeps it at probably around the "ad hominem" tier of disagreement (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html). I think even if you were to present statistics of some kind, some people might not consider it enough and ask for some different contrived set, on and on, forever. If you think something's really wrong, you email the mods about it. Otherwise you get in this exact meta-discussion land about what is astroturfing, what are accusations, and so on. And then you get threads that distract from meaningful conversations, on and on, forever. Maybe we could all just try to discuss the article and related comments by refuting/agreeing with their central points. It would be less boring than seeing the same metadiscussion and flailing forever. (In that vein, I won't be replying to this comment further) edit: for those left wanting, take a look at the words of 'dang: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by...

BubRoss 6y ago
> It more than "looks bad", it actively stifles conversation and keeps it at probably around the "ad hominem" tier of disagreement If it happens a lot and without a given reason it certainly does, but it isn't such a black and white issue that it has to be stopped at all costs. When someone points out very suspicious patterns over multiple names, comments, similar threads that are more likely to have astroturfing or bots etc. and mods pop in to say not to talk about astroturfing and bots because it doesn't happen, that's not helping keep the site to a higher standard. I don't doubt it is a priority and people are working on it, and I don't think the reply here that has no examples is worthwhile, but an all or nothing attitude doesn't help, because it is the reality of the internet.

donw 6y ago

HN's moderation team has earned that trust.

Simulacra 6y ago
Do you have any examples of this? Have there been any significant instances of this? I’m not saying that the moderation team is not good, but we should be allowed to question and discuss the possibility that they are not.
- striking 6y ago
  https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by...
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Derp. Ya know if I had thought about my question a little more I could have found the answer on my own. Thank you!
    - donw 6y ago
      No worries, we’ve all asked questions that can be resolved by a search at some point. :)

simias 6y ago

That's not how the burden of proof works. It's also not so much about trying not to make "the site look bad", it's more that it generally leads to baseless witchhunts and flame wars. HN has an advantage over Twitter and other social networks: posts are supposed to be insightful instead of merely pictures of cats or people doing funny tricks. As a result we can criticize posts based on their intrinsic values instead of having to go meta and wonder about the intentions of the person posting them. If a bot manages to posts dozens of interesting stories that make it up to the top of the front page every day I say we keep it...

BiteCode_dev 6y ago
Would you keep a bot that just massively upvote things so that they reached frontpage, then rented to the higest PR firm bidder?