5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C.A.B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C.A.B. This violates the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.ht

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C.A.B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C.A.B. This violates the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.

CameronNemo 6y ago
In his defense, all technology is an instrument of political and ideological battle. If the site admins really want to enforce that guideline, then we should not be discussing current events here.
- dang 6y ago
  You might be misreading that guideline. It's not trying to exclude political discussion—only one form of it. Technological and political topics overlap (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). That's why politics has never been excluded from HN (other than an experiment we once briefly tried and quickly rolled back). Maybe your formulation of that overlap is the right one, maybe others are better, but they all point to the same fundamental, which we agree on. HN has always, or nearly always, hosted a certain amount of political discussion (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 for some history). The distinction that guideline attempts to draw is not "political vs. apolitical", but rather between two different forms of discussion: discussion whose purpose is communication and discussion whose purpose is battle. These are remarkably different in practice: one seeks to hear and learn from the other, one seeks to defeat and destroy the other. People are generally in very different states when they're doing those two things. It's not primarily a distinction of views; whatever your views are, you can either do battle or do communication about them, depending on what state you're in and what your intention is. This distinction is existential for a site like HN, where the intention is to survive as a place for curious conversation and somehow escape the default fate of internet forums, which is to destroy themselves—or at least stave it off for as long as we can (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html, https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20stave&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). By now, we have a lot of experience with moderating the site according to this distinction, and if there's a better way to do it, I'd love to know what it is. If you want to take a look at past explanations, https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... and https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20primarily%20test&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... are good entrypoints. If after reading that material, you or anyone still have a question that hasn't been answered yet, I'd like to know what it is. And if you know a better way for HN moderation to relate to political topics, I'd really like to know what it is. Just make sure you've familiarized yourself with the material first, because if it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've answered many times already why it won't work.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. It was non-obvious to me at first reading, but I can see the interpretation you outline now. >And if you know a better way for HN moderation to relate to political topics, I'd really like to know what it is. I would point out the /r/AskHistorians and /r/PoliticalDiscussion communities, which are surprisingly civil (at least for reddit). The latter community has guidelines for what makes a successful submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/wiki/posts https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/wiki/posts . Both are mainly question driven, which I find refreshing. When we are reading news articles or research, the discussion can be extra reactionary and hyper-focused on the source and author, minor gaps in a study's coverage, or the specific circumstances of the story.
- rectang 6y ago
  I hear you, and I've been modded myself. But the guidelines provided a damping effect that allows for conversations to occur which would quickly spin out of control otherwise.
- booleandilemma 6y ago
  I think we can have a civil discussion without resorting to slogans and rallying cries.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    I agree, I take issue with the guideline on its own, not that it was applied in this case. Although I think this could be better justification for the flagging of that comment: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

CameronNemo 6y ago

In his defense, all technology is an instrument of political and ideological battle. If the site admins really want to enforce that guideline, then we should not be discussing current events here.

dang 6y ago
You might be misreading that guideline. It's not trying to exclude political discussion—only one form of it. Technological and political topics overlap (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). That's why politics has never been excluded from HN (other than an experiment we once briefly tried and quickly rolled back). Maybe your formulation of that overlap is the right one, maybe others are better, but they all point to the same fundamental, which we agree on. HN has always, or nearly always, hosted a certain amount of political discussion (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 for some history). The distinction that guideline attempts to draw is not "political vs. apolitical", but rather between two different forms of discussion: discussion whose purpose is communication and discussion whose purpose is battle. These are remarkably different in practice: one seeks to hear and learn from the other, one seeks to defeat and destroy the other. People are generally in very different states when they're doing those two things. It's not primarily a distinction of views; whatever your views are, you can either do battle or do communication about them, depending on what state you're in and what your intention is. This distinction is existential for a site like HN, where the intention is to survive as a place for curious conversation and somehow escape the default fate of internet forums, which is to destroy themselves—or at least stave it off for as long as we can (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html, https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20stave&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). By now, we have a lot of experience with moderating the site according to this distinction, and if there's a better way to do it, I'd love to know what it is. If you want to take a look at past explanations, https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20political%20overlap&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... and https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20primarily%20test&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... are good entrypoints. If after reading that material, you or anyone still have a question that hasn't been answered yet, I'd like to know what it is. And if you know a better way for HN moderation to relate to political topics, I'd really like to know what it is. Just make sure you've familiarized yourself with the material first, because if it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've answered many times already why it won't work.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. It was non-obvious to me at first reading, but I can see the interpretation you outline now. >And if you know a better way for HN moderation to relate to political topics, I'd really like to know what it is. I would point out the /r/AskHistorians and /r/PoliticalDiscussion communities, which are surprisingly civil (at least for reddit). The latter community has guidelines for what makes a successful submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/wiki/posts https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/wiki/posts . Both are mainly question driven, which I find refreshing. When we are reading news articles or research, the discussion can be extra reactionary and hyper-focused on the source and author, minor gaps in a study's coverage, or the specific circumstances of the story.
rectang 6y ago
I hear you, and I've been modded myself. But the guidelines provided a damping effect that allows for conversations to occur which would quickly spin out of control otherwise.
booleandilemma 6y ago
I think we can have a civil discussion without resorting to slogans and rallying cries.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  I agree, I take issue with the guideline on its own, not that it was applied in this case. Although I think this could be better justification for the flagging of that comment: >Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.