4 ms·

Hindsight is 20-20, but looking back it seems clear they were credible and correct, which is why I just wonder if dang could explain why they were flagged. Were

by breck 6y ago

Hindsight is 20-20, but looking back it seems clear they were credible and correct, which is why I just wonder if dang could explain why they were flagged. Were moderators involved? Was any attempt made to verify? Or was it just lost in a sea of comments flagged daily (I don't know, not sure how the backend works here).

detaro 6y ago
Flagging is a user action, not something mods do, and I don't see why mods should have overridden that here. It's obviously always possible that strong claims that are impossible to confirm quickly turn out to be true, that doesn't mean we should let them always stand as if they are true in such circumstances. EDIT: and usual hint, the most reliable way to get an answer from dang is emailing him.
- tempsy 6y ago
  something that is not immediately verifiable is not reason alone to censor something.
dang 6y ago
Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things. It was flagkilled for a while and then we unkilled it but left [flagged] on. It also got a lot of upvotes, so the signals were actually mixed. I don't have any special insight, but FWIW: situations like this are inevitably messy. People want different things (e.g. the social standard about not speaking ill of the dead vs. curiosity to know the truth or share inside information) and they do different things (e.g. use of throwaway accounts to share sensitive true information vs. to post rumors or lies). How all that adds up is impossible to be certain about, and people will strongly disagree. It's intrinsically conflictual and I don't think we can impose simple rules on it. For example: HN is a watercooler site and it's natural for people to wonder what really happened and want to talk about it; and at the same time, that sort of internet thread can run amok and do harm surprisingly quickly. In my experience, that sort of throwaway account (but there are many sorts—let's not overgeneralize) is usually reporting something true, though perhaps biased. But "usually" is still far from certain. If we'd known that it was likely false we'd have left the comment flagkilled, but in this case it felt likely true, so I unkilled it, but left [flagged] on as a marker of community discontent. To anyone who objects "who the hell are you to make calls about 'feels', 'likely', 'true' or 'false'", I can only completely agree. p.s. Here's what I replied to a user who emailed about it a few days ago: "I've unkilled the comment but left it [flagged]. I think that's the right balance. Posts like that are usually authentic, in my experience. Not to say that people don't make shit up on the internet—they certainly do—but one can usually 'smell' the difference somehow. Of course the fact that it's true doesn't make it an appropriate comment, but I think [flagged] is enough of a marker to indicate that, and to let people decide for themselves. It's a tragic story in any case."
- breck 6y ago
  Thanks, really helpful the hear how you handle these sorts of situations. I don’t have any good ideas on how to handle it better, and maybe the original commenter could have provided some more corroborating info to preempt the flags. Given your information seems like it would be unreasonable on the mods to handle this one any differently.
- Alex3917 6y ago
  > In my experience, that sort of throwaway account (but there are many sorts—let's not overgeneralize) is usually reporting something true, though perhaps biased. If you look at the academic research on rumors, most rumors are apparently fairly accurate. That's why they spread so quickly. E.g.: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009102609001900209 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009102609001900...
  - dang 6y ago
    I suppose the key word is "fairly". The higher that number goes, the more incentive there is for impostors, and that brings the number back down—so fairly accurate is about as accurate as they can get.
- prawn 6y ago
  I've run and moderated a forum for 15+ years (not dissimilar position to your role here) and think I've developed a pretty good instinct for picking the truth from fiction in anonymous posts of that sort. I was very confident that it was close enough to the truth. That said, I don't think the average reader can "smell" the difference in the same way; they haven't approached a forum daily with a moderator's eye. I'm always amazed when people mistake a troll for someone genuine or the reverse, when it's been obvious to me.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ashtonkem 6y ago
Incidental correctness does not validate a sloppy process.
mook 6y ago
> Hindsight is 20-20, but looking back it seems clear they were credible and correct, As far as I can tell, they were correct but not credible: they did not provide sources in the comment, and it was basically left to be evaluated in a vacuum. (For context: I did not down vote or flag that comment.)

by breck 6y ago

detaro 6y ago

Flagging is a user action, not something mods do, and I don't see why mods should have overridden that here. It's obviously always possible that strong claims that are impossible to confirm quickly turn out to be true, that doesn't mean we should let them always stand as if they are true in such circumstances. EDIT: and usual hint, the most reliable way to get an answer from dang is emailing him.

tempsy 6y ago
something that is not immediately verifiable is not reason alone to censor something.

dang 6y ago

Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things. It was flagkilled for a while and then we unkilled it but left [flagged] on. It also got a lot of upvotes, so the signals were actually mixed. I don't have any special insight, but FWIW: situations like this are inevitably messy. People want different things (e.g. the social standard about not speaking ill of the dead vs. curiosity to know the truth or share inside information) and they do different things (e.g. use of throwaway accounts to share sensitive true information vs. to post rumors or lies). How all that adds up is impossible to be certain about, and people will strongly disagree. It's intrinsically conflictual and I don't think we can impose simple rules on it. For example: HN is a watercooler site and it's natural for people to wonder what really happened and want to talk about it; and at the same time, that sort of internet thread can run amok and do harm surprisingly quickly. In my experience, that sort of throwaway account (but there are many sorts—let's not overgeneralize) is usually reporting something true, though perhaps biased. But "usually" is still far from certain. If we'd known that it was likely false we'd have left the comment flagkilled, but in this case it felt likely true, so I unkilled it, but left [flagged] on as a marker of community discontent. To anyone who objects "who the hell are you to make calls about 'feels', 'likely', 'true' or 'false'", I can only completely agree. p.s. Here's what I replied to a user who emailed about it a few days ago: "I've unkilled the comment but left it [flagged]. I think that's the right balance. Posts like that are usually authentic, in my experience. Not to say that people don't make shit up on the internet—they certainly do—but one can usually 'smell' the difference somehow. Of course the fact that it's true doesn't make it an appropriate comment, but I think [flagged] is enough of a marker to indicate that, and to let people decide for themselves. It's a tragic story in any case."

breck 6y ago
Thanks, really helpful the hear how you handle these sorts of situations. I don’t have any good ideas on how to handle it better, and maybe the original commenter could have provided some more corroborating info to preempt the flags. Given your information seems like it would be unreasonable on the mods to handle this one any differently.
Alex3917 6y ago
> In my experience, that sort of throwaway account (but there are many sorts—let's not overgeneralize) is usually reporting something true, though perhaps biased. If you look at the academic research on rumors, most rumors are apparently fairly accurate. That's why they spread so quickly. E.g.: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009102609001900209 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009102609001900...
- dang 6y ago
  I suppose the key word is "fairly". The higher that number goes, the more incentive there is for impostors, and that brings the number back down—so fairly accurate is about as accurate as they can get.
prawn 6y ago
I've run and moderated a forum for 15+ years (not dissimilar position to your role here) and think I've developed a pretty good instinct for picking the truth from fiction in anonymous posts of that sort. I was very confident that it was close enough to the truth. That said, I don't think the average reader can "smell" the difference in the same way; they haven't approached a forum daily with a moderator's eye. I'm always amazed when people mistake a troll for someone genuine or the reverse, when it's been obvious to me.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ashtonkem 6y ago

Incidental correctness does not validate a sloppy process.

mook 6y ago

> Hindsight is 20-20, but looking back it seems clear they were credible and correct, As far as I can tell, they were correct but not credible: they did not provide sources in the comment, and it was basically left to be evaluated in a vacuum. (For context: I did not down vote or flag that comment.)