4 ms·

Even my post trying to discuss suppression of suppression articles, just got suppressed! How suppressing :( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835 http

Even my post trying to discuss suppression of suppression articles, just got suppressed! How suppressing :( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835

dang 6y ago
Users flagged it. That's usually what happened. Probably in this case it's because metadrama threads like that are a dime-a-dozen and never lead anywhere new - they just become generic hodgepodges.
- nkurz 6y ago
  > Probably in this case it's because metadrama threads like that are a dime-a-dozen and never lead anywhere new I think that's unlikely. While it would be great to know why users flag the stories that they flag (feature request?) in this case I'd wager heavily that it was flagged by people who feel the underlying story is false and unworthy of public discussion, and not out of concern that the discussion would be boring. Separately, I'll note that this story was submitted yesterday, quickly got to 38 votes and 7 comments, and then was flagged off as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881000. I vouched for it, which brought it back briefly, but then it was killed again. Oddly, that version doesn't appear when one clicks on 'past', or with search terms for "taibbi" or "suppression". Any idea why this might be? Are flag killed stories always omitted from searches? Edit: This post discussing the flagging of this story is flagged as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835. Should it be? It seems like it raises reasonable issues. Vouching for it did nothing.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Thanks for vouching, that was the thread I linked in the GP post dang was replying to. Constructive ideation on fixing a community problem of censorship is now "metadrama", Orwellian. I'm open to it not being a problem, but we can't even have that discussion. Taibbi frequently gets flagged, he's not liberal enough for the site. I don't have the motivation to now but if someone wrote a "HN has a flagging problem" and got lucky with timing, maybe they'd listen? I may have to just accept one of the last decent sites for discussing tech events is going down the same path as the rest of them, though tbh it's been on the path for a long time now (I've noticed at least 15 decent articles in the last year flagged for essentially being "not liberal" despite high quality content).
    - dang 6y ago
      You're talking as if there's some new development here but HN has operated this way for many years. People are prone to interpret normal fluctuation as catastrophic decline. They were saying similar things about HN well over a decade ago. It always reminds me of what Voltaire said when told that he drank too much coffee and that it was a slow poison: "It must be very slow". [1] Taibbi pieces have had more significant threads here than most political commentators. If HN did as you seem to be suggesting and disallowed flags on any articles like this—the ones that you like, plus the ones that everyone else likes, since why should one user be privileged over another?—then the site would consist of nothing but articles like this. That's obviously not its mandate. I don't see how this is "Orwellian", but it's not always easy to know WWOD (what would Orwell do). [1] Actually it was Fontenelle but Voltaire makes for a better story. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/22/coffee/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/22/coffee/
      - nwienert 6y ago
        So many strawmen! Dang maybe you’re just burnt out or something, because you’re not replying to anything I said. I would never and didn’t at all ask for privilege. I set out suggestions to avoid majoritarianism, systemically. One - make flags “cost”, for less brigades. Two, make vouches cost more, but also have more weight, as vouching can protect a minority view. I never said disallow flags on articles “like that”? I’m not even a big fan of Taibbi, I’m just a bit disgusted by people who would flag away things they just don’t like politically. It’s a problem, but my guess is it suits your politics and your bosses, so it’s not very pressing. What’s Orwellian is that you can’t seem to grapple with anything I’m saying and instead or twisting it all to totally different arguments, while using quite creative yet generic words to hide behind authority. Read your initial reply: The reason you give for why it’s valid to dismiss an article on simple suggestions to fix flagging was... “it was flagged”, it was “Metadrama”, and it would (in your psychic wisdom) lead to a “generic hodgepodge” discussion. Could literally apply to any HN submission about the site itself, and in this reply you seem to had misread it as some beg for privilege for myself or something weird like that. I’ve also been on HN for over a decade. I’ve seen a ton of controversies, I never waded in really. I’ve held my tongue for years on the suppression one, it’s been obvious for years. I’ve seen many claiming it went downhill. In fact at my first job a decade ago I remember multiple co-workers warning me how it’s gone downhill. I know it’s always been that way. But the reasons it was going downhill before and now are categorically different. Before it was due to incessant flame wars, bad faith pedantry, lack of openness to new ideas (but within discussion). Now - it’s literal flag brigading. To be honest, this happened near the election last time. People lose sanity, and then they see abuse of power as “popular” and therefore justified, and then after the election the tide will naturally turn and you’ll forget the problem for a bit. Censorship, majority rule, there aren’t the same as the critiques I’ve seen many many times over the years. Before it was about quality of discussion, now it’s about banning discussion entirely.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Of course they flagged it. Even more ironic is you missed the point of the post anyway, and your core reply here off: it wasn't meta-discussion, it was an entirely different discussion on the overuse of flagging on this site with examples of how it's happening + call for comments specifically on how to change flagging. In fact it was constructive, and the tone tempered. Not being able to discuss changes to the flag system itself because it gets flagged is a big... red flag. It's become used for "I personally don't agree with this" instead of "this is off topic, inflammatory, illogical, etc". Once you go down the path of allowing flagging for personal distaste, you've lost.
  - dang 6y ago
    By meta I mean Hacker News threads about Hacker News. Meta is the crack of internet forums. Users tend to flag such threads and moderators tend to moderate them because they're mostly all the same, they breed like rabbits if allowed to, and they're not actually interesting—they're internet drama, which feels interesting but isn't. Such pseudo-content pleases/riles the self-obsessed minority (I mean the minority of HN users who are fascinated with HN, which certainly includes me) but leaves the majority of the audience cold. Self-referentiality is one way for a forum to lose its audience, and our #1 job is to prevent that happening to HN. This is bog standard HN moderation, btw, and has been the same for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22meta%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Even my analogies have been the same for years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20meta%20crack&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Everyone who rushes to post such a thread feels like this is the one that changes everything, but that's the crack talking. I realize that your intention was good and that what I'm saying here must sound cynical and heavyhanded, but you have to understand what it's like to see these things a hundred times and realize that they're never different and never lead anywhere. If they don't make you feel weary and slightly nauseated, that's because you haven't seen too many of them yet.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      I think there's a difference between meta-drama and discussion of improving the algorithm itself to avoid meta-drama. I'd actually honestly like to hear your reply on the proposals for flag rule changes. I think they would work, and would improve the discussion quality. We'd get more "out of the box" stuff - far left or right, but also just more out there ideas. Finally - you spend a ton of time on the meta stuff. I read over a few pages there. You say often you don't have time for it. Perhaps it's time to try making some changes that would reduce the burden? And not ones that further lock it down, but instead add some transparency? You guys already have vote brigading rules, flag brigading seems natural. Adding cost will improve the quality. Making vouches more precious would improve the quality. Perhaps add a meta column to the topbar and direct/move all meta discussions there? I know your reply will be "this will only further it" but I doubt it, they could then avoid the home page altogether. Only trying to help here, but I think you're now so meta-tired you've forgotten that meta discussion can be constructive and there's perhaps really simple changes that would reduce a good chunk of these complains. Final note - seems like a lot of the complaints are all going the same direction. Maybe they're valid and not just drama. Edit: let me reframe it in a way that may be helpful: if you could reply to every meta thread with a single link to a static page on HN, a small write up that included a changelog of the latest rule changes you've implemented, a clear policy enumerated, and a link to a "meta" area where you'd automatically move comments/threads, you'd save yourself a ton of time going forward, and I think you'd gain a ton of positive goodwill on the site. You'd conquer the meme thats been building for years as well.

Even my post trying to discuss suppression of suppression articles, just got suppressed! How suppressing :( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835

dang 6y ago

Users flagged it. That's usually what happened. Probably in this case it's because metadrama threads like that are a dime-a-dozen and never lead anywhere new - they just become generic hodgepodges.

nkurz 6y ago
> Probably in this case it's because metadrama threads like that are a dime-a-dozen and never lead anywhere new I think that's unlikely. While it would be great to know why users flag the stories that they flag (feature request?) in this case I'd wager heavily that it was flagged by people who feel the underlying story is false and unworthy of public discussion, and not out of concern that the discussion would be boring. Separately, I'll note that this story was submitted yesterday, quickly got to 38 votes and 7 comments, and then was flagged off as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881000. I vouched for it, which brought it back briefly, but then it was killed again. Oddly, that version doesn't appear when one clicks on 'past', or with search terms for "taibbi" or "suppression". Any idea why this might be? Are flag killed stories always omitted from searches? Edit: This post discussing the flagging of this story is flagged as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24889835. Should it be? It seems like it raises reasonable issues. Vouching for it did nothing.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Thanks for vouching, that was the thread I linked in the GP post dang was replying to. Constructive ideation on fixing a community problem of censorship is now "metadrama", Orwellian. I'm open to it not being a problem, but we can't even have that discussion. Taibbi frequently gets flagged, he's not liberal enough for the site. I don't have the motivation to now but if someone wrote a "HN has a flagging problem" and got lucky with timing, maybe they'd listen? I may have to just accept one of the last decent sites for discussing tech events is going down the same path as the rest of them, though tbh it's been on the path for a long time now (I've noticed at least 15 decent articles in the last year flagged for essentially being "not liberal" despite high quality content).
  - dang 6y ago
    You're talking as if there's some new development here but HN has operated this way for many years. People are prone to interpret normal fluctuation as catastrophic decline. They were saying similar things about HN well over a decade ago. It always reminds me of what Voltaire said when told that he drank too much coffee and that it was a slow poison: "It must be very slow". [1] Taibbi pieces have had more significant threads here than most political commentators. If HN did as you seem to be suggesting and disallowed flags on any articles like this—the ones that you like, plus the ones that everyone else likes, since why should one user be privileged over another?—then the site would consist of nothing but articles like this. That's obviously not its mandate. I don't see how this is "Orwellian", but it's not always easy to know WWOD (what would Orwell do). [1] Actually it was Fontenelle but Voltaire makes for a better story. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/22/coffee/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/22/coffee/
    - nwienert 6y ago
      So many strawmen! Dang maybe you’re just burnt out or something, because you’re not replying to anything I said. I would never and didn’t at all ask for privilege. I set out suggestions to avoid majoritarianism, systemically. One - make flags “cost”, for less brigades. Two, make vouches cost more, but also have more weight, as vouching can protect a minority view. I never said disallow flags on articles “like that”? I’m not even a big fan of Taibbi, I’m just a bit disgusted by people who would flag away things they just don’t like politically. It’s a problem, but my guess is it suits your politics and your bosses, so it’s not very pressing. What’s Orwellian is that you can’t seem to grapple with anything I’m saying and instead or twisting it all to totally different arguments, while using quite creative yet generic words to hide behind authority. Read your initial reply: The reason you give for why it’s valid to dismiss an article on simple suggestions to fix flagging was... “it was flagged”, it was “Metadrama”, and it would (in your psychic wisdom) lead to a “generic hodgepodge” discussion. Could literally apply to any HN submission about the site itself, and in this reply you seem to had misread it as some beg for privilege for myself or something weird like that. I’ve also been on HN for over a decade. I’ve seen a ton of controversies, I never waded in really. I’ve held my tongue for years on the suppression one, it’s been obvious for years. I’ve seen many claiming it went downhill. In fact at my first job a decade ago I remember multiple co-workers warning me how it’s gone downhill. I know it’s always been that way. But the reasons it was going downhill before and now are categorically different. Before it was due to incessant flame wars, bad faith pedantry, lack of openness to new ideas (but within discussion). Now - it’s literal flag brigading. To be honest, this happened near the election last time. People lose sanity, and then they see abuse of power as “popular” and therefore justified, and then after the election the tide will naturally turn and you’ll forget the problem for a bit. Censorship, majority rule, there aren’t the same as the critiques I’ve seen many many times over the years. Before it was about quality of discussion, now it’s about banning discussion entirely.
nwienert 6y ago
Of course they flagged it. Even more ironic is you missed the point of the post anyway, and your core reply here off: it wasn't meta-discussion, it was an entirely different discussion on the overuse of flagging on this site with examples of how it's happening + call for comments specifically on how to change flagging. In fact it was constructive, and the tone tempered. Not being able to discuss changes to the flag system itself because it gets flagged is a big... red flag. It's become used for "I personally don't agree with this" instead of "this is off topic, inflammatory, illogical, etc". Once you go down the path of allowing flagging for personal distaste, you've lost.
- dang 6y ago
  By meta I mean Hacker News threads about Hacker News. Meta is the crack of internet forums. Users tend to flag such threads and moderators tend to moderate them because they're mostly all the same, they breed like rabbits if allowed to, and they're not actually interesting—they're internet drama, which feels interesting but isn't. Such pseudo-content pleases/riles the self-obsessed minority (I mean the minority of HN users who are fascinated with HN, which certainly includes me) but leaves the majority of the audience cold. Self-referentiality is one way for a forum to lose its audience, and our #1 job is to prevent that happening to HN. This is bog standard HN moderation, btw, and has been the same for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22meta%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Even my analogies have been the same for years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20meta%20crack&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Everyone who rushes to post such a thread feels like this is the one that changes everything, but that's the crack talking. I realize that your intention was good and that what I'm saying here must sound cynical and heavyhanded, but you have to understand what it's like to see these things a hundred times and realize that they're never different and never lead anywhere. If they don't make you feel weary and slightly nauseated, that's because you haven't seen too many of them yet.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    I think there's a difference between meta-drama and discussion of improving the algorithm itself to avoid meta-drama. I'd actually honestly like to hear your reply on the proposals for flag rule changes. I think they would work, and would improve the discussion quality. We'd get more "out of the box" stuff - far left or right, but also just more out there ideas. Finally - you spend a ton of time on the meta stuff. I read over a few pages there. You say often you don't have time for it. Perhaps it's time to try making some changes that would reduce the burden? And not ones that further lock it down, but instead add some transparency? You guys already have vote brigading rules, flag brigading seems natural. Adding cost will improve the quality. Making vouches more precious would improve the quality. Perhaps add a meta column to the topbar and direct/move all meta discussions there? I know your reply will be "this will only further it" but I doubt it, they could then avoid the home page altogether. Only trying to help here, but I think you're now so meta-tired you've forgotten that meta discussion can be constructive and there's perhaps really simple changes that would reduce a good chunk of these complains. Final note - seems like a lot of the complaints are all going the same direction. Maybe they're valid and not just drama. Edit: let me reframe it in a way that may be helpful: if you could reply to every meta thread with a single link to a static page on HN, a small write up that included a changelog of the latest rule changes you've implemented, a clear policy enumerated, and a link to a "meta" area where you'd automatically move comments/threads, you'd save yourself a ton of time going forward, and I think you'd gain a ton of positive goodwill on the site. You'd conquer the meme thats been building for years as well.