6 ms·

Dang, I respectfully disagree. Just the other day I noticed HN take a heavy hand on removing an article that hit the homepage about a virologist publishing a p

Dang, I respectfully disagree. Just the other day I noticed HN take a heavy hand on removing an article that hit the homepage about a virologist publishing a paper that suggested the only logical explanation for COVID is that it’s manufactured. There are absolutely topics and perspectives that are not welcomed on HN, as the lead moderator it would be unwise in my opinion to think otherwise (given your biases would be the most threatening to an open forum) and you naturally would have a tough time identifying the absence of a perspective you don’t share. As an example, I would challenge you to pick five articles that discuss unions that hit the homepage on HN and see what % of threads (and how much of the up vote they accounted for) were inherently anti union. I would also be sure to give only partial credit for threads that added boiler plate sentences saying something along the lines of “while I believe in the value of XYZ” because that’s basically a requirement to take any contrarian (to liberal / Silicon Valley ideology) or conservative view on this site. I can give you a laundry list of topics that will show this trend. From my (biased) perspective (and from someone outside of the valley reading this site religiously for 13 years) HN is increasingly hostile to certain perspectives (and I’m not talking about social issues here). I don’t care much about it - I just opt out - which is the point. Why not run a poll about it?

Ghjklov 6y ago
What was the article? Now I'm curious
- lefstathiou 6y ago
  Google around and you will find it. To me it makes no difference whether it was or wasn’t, what was eye opening was the speed of it hitting and being removed. It’s the unwillingness to even allow the topic on HN which intrigued me. Believing what I believe (ie my bias) I was surprised it got as far as it did - because I know that’s not the HN community party line - and then noticed it disappeared within seconds of me seeing it on home page. I was the first to comment on it so it couldn’t have been because the threads descended into a flame war and I was unaware of which other guidelines it could have broken given it was a legit site referencing a legit paper in a legit journal (but taking a perspective the broader Hn community won’t tolerate).
  - IAmEveryone 6y ago
    > it was a legit site referencing a legit paper in a legit journal It wasn't. the article explained how they couldn't find a publisher for it. That's why I flagged it, because that's a red flag. It was also based on the statistical fallacy that Feynman once summed up with "There is a car with license plate GH02B [a sequence with no meaning] outside. What are the odds?!"
    - DonHopkins 6y ago
      Feynman didn't have google to confirm all his statistical fallacies! https://www.airbnb.nl/rooms/38836139?source_impression_id=p3_1594557444_LCcAEG9b4Rci90c4&guests=1&adults=1 https://www.airbnb.nl/rooms/38836139?source_impression_id=p3... https://www.vieffetrade.eu/sale/bathroom-accessories/ibb/acrylic-cup-holder/gh02b/90987 https://www.vieffetrade.eu/sale/bathroom-accessories/ibb/acr... https://isos.co.uk/product/gh02d-gh02h-gh02b/ https://isos.co.uk/product/gh02d-gh02h-gh02b/ https://www.check-mot-history.co.uk/reg/gh02b https://www.check-mot-history.co.uk/reg/gh02b
- gus_massa 6y ago
  Probably "The most logical explanation is that Covid-19 comes from a laboratory" https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanation-is-that-it-comes-from-a-laboratory/361860 https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanati... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23725966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23725966 (flagged, 18 points, 8 days ago, 4 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727763 (10 points, 8 days ago, 3 comments) [Personal opinion: The evidence is not enough to prove that is was created/improved/selected in a lab. It has a few "lucky" features, but normal coronavirus don't cause pandemics, so we already know it is a "lucky" case.] 18 points by haltingproblem 8 days ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 4 comments "
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > The evidence is not enough to prove that is was created/improved/selected in a lab. All of the current evidence points at the Wuhan labs. And there's tons of it. All pundits say so in current interviews.
  - mirimir 6y ago
    I've seen an article claiming that it spread from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But not in the sense that they created, improved or selected it. I gather that they were simply isolating and studying viruses from bats that had been collected in southern China. And they were doing that based on concerns about new pandemics, given experience with SARS and MERS, and the expectation that there would be more zoonotic jumps from bat populations.
  - rurban 6y ago
    I would not dismiss his arguments at first sight. but they are presented as anecdotes, not as convincing proof. his gut instinct might be right, because he is experienced, but there should be a proof. And genomics proofs are actually easy nowadays. everybody is familiar with neural networks and how long it needs to come up with optimized mutations. I just miss the mathematical proof of the low likelihood of natural mutations in x generations to come up with that special spike. Note that the period of 10-14 days per generation is extremely fast. Like with the drosphila. extraordinary claims need better proofs.
dang 6y ago
It seems to me that you're confirming my point by making a strong generalization about HN based on what you noticed and disliked. I assure you that the people who dislike the opposite things notice the opposite things and make the opposite strong generalization. If you're talking about the covid submissions that gus_massa came up with, they were flagged by users. In one case we lessened the penalty and the other looks like one we didn't see. I do think that it's unlikely that HN can have a curious conversation about that theme, much as we might both prefer otherwise. I don't think you can validly draw significant general conclusions from that. A poll wouldn't convince anybody. It would just reconstitute the same disagreement at a meta level. I wrote about something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23239793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23239793. (Edit: and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23808089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23808089 in this thread, as it turns out.)
- newacct583 6y ago
  For the record: I rather think that comment validates my view. This is what you're hearing: "This guy is complaining that you took down a winger conspiracy theory that got upvoted, therefore HN must be balanced." Here's what I hear: "A winger conspiracy theory goes to the top of the HN front page before being taken down! That means that the voting population of HN is horrifically skewed." See the difference in perspective? I'm happy you take conspiracy stuff down, I really am. But I'm not happy about the population that pushes it finding a home here, which they clearly have.
  - dang 6y ago
    That's not what I heard. You're drawing extremely skewed conclusions about the "voting population" of HN. One of those posts made it to #16 before being flagged, the other did not make the front page at all. It takes only a handful of votes to make the front page (much of the time, anyhow—it's complicated), and #16 is not high—any sensational story can easily get that far before being flagged down (and by the way, it was users who flagged it down, not us). HN is a large enough population sample that you'll find that scale of upvoters upvoting anything, some of the time. You can't conclude anything significant about the "voting population" of HN from that, and the fact that you're doing so strikes me as an indication of what I'm arguing—that your generalizations about HN are determined by your own ideological priors, just as people with opposite ideological commitments arrive at the opposite generalizations, and by exactly the same mechanism. I think you'd arrive at the same conclusion that I have, if you were forced as I have been to look at all sides of this under unrelenting personal pressure. I also think that I'd be arriving at your conclusion if I hadn't been forced to have this experience. That's a pessimistic conclusion—it means that rational discussion of this is probably not possible. (I mean that structurally—not a personal swipe but exactly the opposite, and I hope that's clear.)
jahaja 6y ago
I think the most obvious bias/skew is towards defending the merits of upper middle-class western lifestyle rather than any particular subject in itself. Obviously that will cause certain subjects to be more vehemently defended than others. An obvious example is where there's a collective disbelief, or perhaps just avoidance, of the bad side of the gig economy since it improves the upper middle-class lifestyle so much that defending it comes naturally even if it's not grounded in social justice.

Ghjklov 6y ago

What was the article? Now I'm curious

lefstathiou 6y ago
Google around and you will find it. To me it makes no difference whether it was or wasn’t, what was eye opening was the speed of it hitting and being removed. It’s the unwillingness to even allow the topic on HN which intrigued me. Believing what I believe (ie my bias) I was surprised it got as far as it did - because I know that’s not the HN community party line - and then noticed it disappeared within seconds of me seeing it on home page. I was the first to comment on it so it couldn’t have been because the threads descended into a flame war and I was unaware of which other guidelines it could have broken given it was a legit site referencing a legit paper in a legit journal (but taking a perspective the broader Hn community won’t tolerate).
- IAmEveryone 6y ago
  > it was a legit site referencing a legit paper in a legit journal It wasn't. the article explained how they couldn't find a publisher for it. That's why I flagged it, because that's a red flag. It was also based on the statistical fallacy that Feynman once summed up with "There is a car with license plate GH02B [a sequence with no meaning] outside. What are the odds?!"
  - DonHopkins 6y ago
    Feynman didn't have google to confirm all his statistical fallacies! https://www.airbnb.nl/rooms/38836139?source_impression_id=p3_1594557444_LCcAEG9b4Rci90c4&guests=1&adults=1 https://www.airbnb.nl/rooms/38836139?source_impression_id=p3... https://www.vieffetrade.eu/sale/bathroom-accessories/ibb/acrylic-cup-holder/gh02b/90987 https://www.vieffetrade.eu/sale/bathroom-accessories/ibb/acr... https://isos.co.uk/product/gh02d-gh02h-gh02b/ https://isos.co.uk/product/gh02d-gh02h-gh02b/ https://www.check-mot-history.co.uk/reg/gh02b https://www.check-mot-history.co.uk/reg/gh02b
gus_massa 6y ago
Probably "The most logical explanation is that Covid-19 comes from a laboratory" https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanation-is-that-it-comes-from-a-laboratory/361860 https://www.minervanett.no/corona/the-most-logical-explanati... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23725966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23725966 (flagged, 18 points, 8 days ago, 4 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23727763 (10 points, 8 days ago, 3 comments) [Personal opinion: The evidence is not enough to prove that is was created/improved/selected in a lab. It has a few "lucky" features, but normal coronavirus don't cause pandemics, so we already know it is a "lucky" case.] 18 points by haltingproblem 8 days ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 4 comments "
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > The evidence is not enough to prove that is was created/improved/selected in a lab. All of the current evidence points at the Wuhan labs. And there's tons of it. All pundits say so in current interviews.
- mirimir 6y ago
  I've seen an article claiming that it spread from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But not in the sense that they created, improved or selected it. I gather that they were simply isolating and studying viruses from bats that had been collected in southern China. And they were doing that based on concerns about new pandemics, given experience with SARS and MERS, and the expectation that there would be more zoonotic jumps from bat populations.
- rurban 6y ago
  I would not dismiss his arguments at first sight. but they are presented as anecdotes, not as convincing proof. his gut instinct might be right, because he is experienced, but there should be a proof. And genomics proofs are actually easy nowadays. everybody is familiar with neural networks and how long it needs to come up with optimized mutations. I just miss the mathematical proof of the low likelihood of natural mutations in x generations to come up with that special spike. Note that the period of 10-14 days per generation is extremely fast. Like with the drosphila. extraordinary claims need better proofs.

dang 6y ago

It seems to me that you're confirming my point by making a strong generalization about HN based on what you noticed and disliked. I assure you that the people who dislike the opposite things notice the opposite things and make the opposite strong generalization. If you're talking about the covid submissions that gus_massa came up with, they were flagged by users. In one case we lessened the penalty and the other looks like one we didn't see. I do think that it's unlikely that HN can have a curious conversation about that theme, much as we might both prefer otherwise. I don't think you can validly draw significant general conclusions from that. A poll wouldn't convince anybody. It would just reconstitute the same disagreement at a meta level. I wrote about something similar here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23239793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23239793. (Edit: and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23808089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23808089 in this thread, as it turns out.)

newacct583 6y ago
For the record: I rather think that comment validates my view. This is what you're hearing: "This guy is complaining that you took down a winger conspiracy theory that got upvoted, therefore HN must be balanced." Here's what I hear: "A winger conspiracy theory goes to the top of the HN front page before being taken down! That means that the voting population of HN is horrifically skewed." See the difference in perspective? I'm happy you take conspiracy stuff down, I really am. But I'm not happy about the population that pushes it finding a home here, which they clearly have.
- dang 6y ago
  That's not what I heard. You're drawing extremely skewed conclusions about the "voting population" of HN. One of those posts made it to #16 before being flagged, the other did not make the front page at all. It takes only a handful of votes to make the front page (much of the time, anyhow—it's complicated), and #16 is not high—any sensational story can easily get that far before being flagged down (and by the way, it was users who flagged it down, not us). HN is a large enough population sample that you'll find that scale of upvoters upvoting anything, some of the time. You can't conclude anything significant about the "voting population" of HN from that, and the fact that you're doing so strikes me as an indication of what I'm arguing—that your generalizations about HN are determined by your own ideological priors, just as people with opposite ideological commitments arrive at the opposite generalizations, and by exactly the same mechanism. I think you'd arrive at the same conclusion that I have, if you were forced as I have been to look at all sides of this under unrelenting personal pressure. I also think that I'd be arriving at your conclusion if I hadn't been forced to have this experience. That's a pessimistic conclusion—it means that rational discussion of this is probably not possible. (I mean that structurally—not a personal swipe but exactly the opposite, and I hope that's clear.)

jahaja 6y ago

I think the most obvious bias/skew is towards defending the merits of upper middle-class western lifestyle rather than any particular subject in itself. Obviously that will cause certain subjects to be more vehemently defended than others. An obvious example is where there's a collective disbelief, or perhaps just avoidance, of the bad side of the gig economy since it improves the upper middle-class lifestyle so much that defending it comes naturally even if it's not grounded in social justice.