4 ms·

>Downvoting has the aggregate effect of suppressing speech... Whatever else HN is, it isn't a platform for free speech. There is definitely an 'orthodoxy' of o

>Downvoting has the aggregate effect of suppressing speech... Whatever else HN is, it isn't a platform for free speech. There is definitely an 'orthodoxy' of opinion on here, stepping outside of which is liable to lead to shadow-banning and post killing.

minimaxir 6y ago
There are a number of "free speech" platforms that exist, but there's a reason they generally devolve into hate and bigotry.
- Normille 6y ago
  Aye, but there's the rub. Are you only in favour of free speech if it's expressing views that you don't find abhorrent? For all that we in the West love to criticise countries like China, Russia [and formerly the USSR], etc. for not allowing dissent, we have pretty much arrived at the same situation in the so-called free speech embracing west. There are points of view and opinions which are effectively censored off the internet, or illegal to express. Now a lot of people in the west say [as you effectively did] "Yes. But that's different. We only ban hatred and bigotry" Well, the people running those regimes we love to feel superior to would express similar sentiments "We only suppress comment that threatens the country or causes social disharmony". They find that kind of thing just as nasty as we find our 'wrong speak'. I don't think we can have it both ways. We either believe in free speech. In which case, with a few exceptions such as inciting violence, etc. people should be able to express, without censure, opinions others may find abhorrent. Or we believe in moderated speech. In which case we need to stop pretending we in the west are in some way superior in this regard, to countries like China, Russia, etc.
claytongulick 6y ago
Given that this article was climbing up the front page, and suddenly disappeared it makes me wonder if you're right about this. I'm scratching my head over it.
- grzm 6y ago
  While the actual algorithm isn't open, that ranking is affected by user and mod action is a FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html > How are stories ranked? > The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way. > Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action. As for the topic, downvoting has been hashed and rehashed numerous times. You can search the archives (see the search link in the footer for previous discussions) to familiarize yourself with what's been discussed before.
  - claytongulick 6y ago
    Dang was super cool and explained this to me as well when I emailed about this post being flagged. It sort of supports my core concern when I see the use of flagging to suppress discussion, even when the subject is clearly on topic and doesn't violate any guidelines. As evidenced by the fairly vibrant discussion here, it seems like far from a resolved issue. Suppressing the post and removing other people's ability to contribute ideas, especially new users, seems like an abuse of the flagging system. Many worthy discussions have been "rehashed" since the beginning of time. Does this mean we should suppress these conversations? Because we may be bored with it?
    - grzm 6y ago
      > "As evidenced by the fairly vibrant discussion here, it seems like far from a resolved issue." As the population of a group grows, the number of people who are dissatisfied with the situation is almost guaranteed to grow as well. That being the case, I'm not sure what resolved looks like. Yes, rules and behavior change over time, and need to as the population changes. And HN has changed over time. Those that aren't satisfied are the ones most likely to be vocal about it, which is why threads and posts like this come up again and again. Some discussion is good. HN members also have to respect what HN is and what HN isn't. 'dang is charged with keeping HN in the spirit of what HN should be. (I'm purposefully not defining what that is because it's not up to me to decide that. And describing a community is a non-trivial thing I'm sure to get wrong ;)) Continued, repeated discussion of topics involving the rules is decidedly not what HN is supposed to be. It's uninteresting and actively drives away people who are otherwise interested in having discussions. Suppressing or censoring or moderating or curating or whatever term you choose to use is one of the ways HN (and really any community) keeps its character. HN can't be all things to all people, and while it may not be perfect, it can definitely be worse. It's been particularly remarkable that recently there have been a number of threads (and an entire post!) where people have expressed their appreciation for HN and in particular it's moderation. There's wide spectrum of people's feelings about HN, not at all surprising given the size of its population. The reason I pointed you at the archives was so that you could learn about the arguments that have been made before, see what 'dang and other moderators and members have said in the past, and see if there is anything new or has changed. That would be one way that this wouldn't be a rehashing and could make a difference. And yes, having the same arguments again and again is boring, and more than that, it distracts from other interesting conversations. The HN of today is the result of HN's history, which includes its moderation by both mods and members. I appreciate the desire to want to make it even better: I share that desire. I also want to respect what HN is, and its history, and how to affect improvements keeping those well in mind. I hesitate to post this as I don't want to continue to add to the rehashing and you've already been in touch with 'dang, and his feedback is going to be much more on point than anything I can say. But I also don't want you to think that there aren't those who think about this as much as you do and come to different (I'm not saying correct, but different) conclusions. Have a great weekend!

minimaxir 6y ago

There are a number of "free speech" platforms that exist, but there's a reason they generally devolve into hate and bigotry.

Normille 6y ago
Aye, but there's the rub. Are you only in favour of free speech if it's expressing views that you don't find abhorrent? For all that we in the West love to criticise countries like China, Russia [and formerly the USSR], etc. for not allowing dissent, we have pretty much arrived at the same situation in the so-called free speech embracing west. There are points of view and opinions which are effectively censored off the internet, or illegal to express. Now a lot of people in the west say [as you effectively did] "Yes. But that's different. We only ban hatred and bigotry" Well, the people running those regimes we love to feel superior to would express similar sentiments "We only suppress comment that threatens the country or causes social disharmony". They find that kind of thing just as nasty as we find our 'wrong speak'. I don't think we can have it both ways. We either believe in free speech. In which case, with a few exceptions such as inciting violence, etc. people should be able to express, without censure, opinions others may find abhorrent. Or we believe in moderated speech. In which case we need to stop pretending we in the west are in some way superior in this regard, to countries like China, Russia, etc.

claytongulick 6y ago

Given that this article was climbing up the front page, and suddenly disappeared it makes me wonder if you're right about this. I'm scratching my head over it.

grzm 6y ago
While the actual algorithm isn't open, that ranking is affected by user and mod action is a FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html > How are stories ranked? > The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way. > Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action. As for the topic, downvoting has been hashed and rehashed numerous times. You can search the archives (see the search link in the footer for previous discussions) to familiarize yourself with what's been discussed before.
- claytongulick 6y ago
  Dang was super cool and explained this to me as well when I emailed about this post being flagged. It sort of supports my core concern when I see the use of flagging to suppress discussion, even when the subject is clearly on topic and doesn't violate any guidelines. As evidenced by the fairly vibrant discussion here, it seems like far from a resolved issue. Suppressing the post and removing other people's ability to contribute ideas, especially new users, seems like an abuse of the flagging system. Many worthy discussions have been "rehashed" since the beginning of time. Does this mean we should suppress these conversations? Because we may be bored with it?
  - grzm 6y ago
    > "As evidenced by the fairly vibrant discussion here, it seems like far from a resolved issue." As the population of a group grows, the number of people who are dissatisfied with the situation is almost guaranteed to grow as well. That being the case, I'm not sure what resolved looks like. Yes, rules and behavior change over time, and need to as the population changes. And HN has changed over time. Those that aren't satisfied are the ones most likely to be vocal about it, which is why threads and posts like this come up again and again. Some discussion is good. HN members also have to respect what HN is and what HN isn't. 'dang is charged with keeping HN in the spirit of what HN should be. (I'm purposefully not defining what that is because it's not up to me to decide that. And describing a community is a non-trivial thing I'm sure to get wrong ;)) Continued, repeated discussion of topics involving the rules is decidedly not what HN is supposed to be. It's uninteresting and actively drives away people who are otherwise interested in having discussions. Suppressing or censoring or moderating or curating or whatever term you choose to use is one of the ways HN (and really any community) keeps its character. HN can't be all things to all people, and while it may not be perfect, it can definitely be worse. It's been particularly remarkable that recently there have been a number of threads (and an entire post!) where people have expressed their appreciation for HN and in particular it's moderation. There's wide spectrum of people's feelings about HN, not at all surprising given the size of its population. The reason I pointed you at the archives was so that you could learn about the arguments that have been made before, see what 'dang and other moderators and members have said in the past, and see if there is anything new or has changed. That would be one way that this wouldn't be a rehashing and could make a difference. And yes, having the same arguments again and again is boring, and more than that, it distracts from other interesting conversations. The HN of today is the result of HN's history, which includes its moderation by both mods and members. I appreciate the desire to want to make it even better: I share that desire. I also want to respect what HN is, and its history, and how to affect improvements keeping those well in mind. I hesitate to post this as I don't want to continue to add to the rehashing and you've already been in touch with 'dang, and his feedback is going to be much more on point than anything I can say. But I also don't want you to think that there aren't those who think about this as much as you do and come to different (I'm not saying correct, but different) conclusions. Have a great weekend!