5 ms·

"Sharing hard truths" without credible backup should be flagged when it's personal information like that. Gossip and tawdry accusations don't have a place in a

"Sharing hard truths" without credible backup should be flagged when it's personal information like that. Gossip and tawdry accusations don't have a place in a community devoted to responsible discourse, especially because lies spread faster than the truth. Having the same conversation now rather than right in the heat of things is fine.

tempsy 6y ago
What do you mean by credible? How does anyone on here present proof of credibility about knowledge of a particular event or issue? The comment in question was from someone who created a throwaway “exzappos” username and claimed to have worked closely with Hsieh and understood the problems that have now come to light. It’s impossible for anyone on here to prove their identity or that they aren’t lying about knowledge about something. In that situation anyone can say an anonymous person on the internet is not credible. Seems like the more appropriate response is to take a comment like that with a grain of salt, but downvoting it to the point of being flagged and deleted made no sense to me either.
- eli 6y ago
  Correct, gossipy comments from throwaway accounts do not have any credibility. Being apparently correct in this instance doesn't change that.
  - tempsy 6y ago
    no one on here has credibility due to the anonymous nature of this site.
    - adamjb 6y ago
      People develop and possess credibility under pseudonyms all the time.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - detaro 6y ago
      Many people are not anonymous on here. (that said I would have found posting that in bad taste even from someone that could be placed 100% as probably being in the know)
      - tempsy 6y ago
        I don’t think something in bad taste needs to be censored. Just my take. It’s the difference between taking a comment with a grain of salt and saying “no one can read this because we can’t prove it.”
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  An anonymous person on the internet is not credible. That's fine when the things anonymous people are posting here can be verified elsewhere, or are philosophical arguments that can be evaluated on their own merits, for example. It's not fine when it's personal accusations and gossip that can't be verified, but which people take to be true just because it seems exciting.
  - tempsy 6y ago
    I didn’t say it was. I challenge the need to censor comments from some random anonymous poster vs taking the comment with a grain of salt but leaving it up. This pretty much mirrors the national debate we’re having about social media and censorship. I’m not in the group where I think something that can’t be definitively verified should be banned from a website. People should be skeptical, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to read something.
    - detaro 6y ago
      You can read flagged comments, you just need to opt-in to do so. HN gives you that escape hatch if you don't want others saying that something isn't appropriate for HN get in the way of seeing it.
      - tempsy 6y ago
        Ok, but not really my point. I’m voicing my surprise that a forum that is primarily members of the tech community would find it appropriate or necessary to aggressively censor comments that aren’t off topic or outright personal attacks or obvious trolling. I don’t think comments from random individuals that aren’t publishers or people of interest, say a politician, should be censored just because others believe they are saying something that can’t be verified, in bad taste, speculative, or not backed by evidence. Take comments like that with a grain of salt. Don’t upvote it. Let people decide for themselves how much weight to put into a comment like that. To flag it so it can’t be read is to make that decision for others.
disown 6y ago
> Having the same conversation now rather than right in the heat of things is fine. Why? I don't think people should arbitrarily decide when other people should have the conversation. What if some people think it's never the right time? Should we never talk about it? How about this, people should be allowed to have conversations about anything at the time of their choosing? Do we really need a moral police to tell us when we can communicate with each other? Nobody should force you to participate in a conversation and certainly you shouldn't prevent others from participating in a conversation.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  Go ahead and have conversations. Posting gossip and rumor on a public site isn't that, and should wait for credible sourcing so that it can be distinguished as true.

tempsy 6y ago

What do you mean by credible? How does anyone on here present proof of credibility about knowledge of a particular event or issue? The comment in question was from someone who created a throwaway “exzappos” username and claimed to have worked closely with Hsieh and understood the problems that have now come to light. It’s impossible for anyone on here to prove their identity or that they aren’t lying about knowledge about something. In that situation anyone can say an anonymous person on the internet is not credible. Seems like the more appropriate response is to take a comment like that with a grain of salt, but downvoting it to the point of being flagged and deleted made no sense to me either.

eli 6y ago
Correct, gossipy comments from throwaway accounts do not have any credibility. Being apparently correct in this instance doesn't change that.
- tempsy 6y ago
  no one on here has credibility due to the anonymous nature of this site.
  - adamjb 6y ago
    People develop and possess credibility under pseudonyms all the time.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - detaro 6y ago
    Many people are not anonymous on here. (that said I would have found posting that in bad taste even from someone that could be placed 100% as probably being in the know)
    - tempsy 6y ago
      I don’t think something in bad taste needs to be censored. Just my take. It’s the difference between taking a comment with a grain of salt and saying “no one can read this because we can’t prove it.”
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
GavinMcG 6y ago
An anonymous person on the internet is not credible. That's fine when the things anonymous people are posting here can be verified elsewhere, or are philosophical arguments that can be evaluated on their own merits, for example. It's not fine when it's personal accusations and gossip that can't be verified, but which people take to be true just because it seems exciting.
- tempsy 6y ago
  I didn’t say it was. I challenge the need to censor comments from some random anonymous poster vs taking the comment with a grain of salt but leaving it up. This pretty much mirrors the national debate we’re having about social media and censorship. I’m not in the group where I think something that can’t be definitively verified should be banned from a website. People should be skeptical, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to read something.
  - detaro 6y ago
    You can read flagged comments, you just need to opt-in to do so. HN gives you that escape hatch if you don't want others saying that something isn't appropriate for HN get in the way of seeing it.
    - tempsy 6y ago
      Ok, but not really my point. I’m voicing my surprise that a forum that is primarily members of the tech community would find it appropriate or necessary to aggressively censor comments that aren’t off topic or outright personal attacks or obvious trolling. I don’t think comments from random individuals that aren’t publishers or people of interest, say a politician, should be censored just because others believe they are saying something that can’t be verified, in bad taste, speculative, or not backed by evidence. Take comments like that with a grain of salt. Don’t upvote it. Let people decide for themselves how much weight to put into a comment like that. To flag it so it can’t be read is to make that decision for others.

disown 6y ago

> Having the same conversation now rather than right in the heat of things is fine. Why? I don't think people should arbitrarily decide when other people should have the conversation. What if some people think it's never the right time? Should we never talk about it? How about this, people should be allowed to have conversations about anything at the time of their choosing? Do we really need a moral police to tell us when we can communicate with each other? Nobody should force you to participate in a conversation and certainly you shouldn't prevent others from participating in a conversation.

GavinMcG 6y ago
Go ahead and have conversations. Posting gossip and rumor on a public site isn't that, and should wait for credible sourcing so that it can be distinguished as true.