4 ms·

So I'm... what? What are you talking about? In what universe is the topic of discussion here about what's popular? If you willingly facilitate people with th

by CBLT 6y ago

So I'm... what? What are you talking about? In what universe is the topic of discussion here about what's popular? If you willingly facilitate people with the intent to hurt and kill, the blood is also on your hands for failure to act. This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment. Secondly, your tone suggests you'd think I have an inconsistent worldview if I believe moderators should perform any moderation action at all? You'll have to explain how that makes sense to you, because moderators providing escalating warnings to users that post insubstantive and volatile comments is something that's been with me for a long time and I'm rather fond of the practice.

the_only_law 6y ago
You’ve outright accuse a user of trolling when there’s no indication of this being so. In fact, it seems more likely that this is their genuine viewpoint. Nothing about it seems insubstantive or volatile to me and it’s pretty inoffensive compared the garbage fire these threads to end up with. > This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment. As to this, fair enough. I had wrongly assumed this comment to be implicitly taking the other side of the GP comment, simply calling for its removal instead of refuting it (you’d be surprised how much things like this happen)
- CBLT 6y ago
  I have three reasons why the comment they made was not worthwhile. 1. Tiresome; it gets made every thread, rebutted every thread, and no progress is made in the discussion. It's time to stop saying the same thing over and over. 2. In bad faith; it does not respond meaningfully to the discussion. Something being legal does not make it ethically optimal. 3. Inciteful; these comments are lightning rods for emotional arguments in the replies. If a comment always causes low-quality discussion, then it's a low-quality comment. You're free to disagree with my points. I suppose I started the character shitflinging by calling the author a troll, but I really think anybody that's been reading HN for long enough (a decade, in that user's case) can do better if they intend to.

by CBLT 6y ago

the_only_law 6y ago

You’ve outright accuse a user of trolling when there’s no indication of this being so. In fact, it seems more likely that this is their genuine viewpoint. Nothing about it seems insubstantive or volatile to me and it’s pretty inoffensive compared the garbage fire these threads to end up with. > This is about ethical duty. Facebook is trying not to shirk this ethical duty. The top-level comment believes they are misapplying and overreaching in their effort to do this. Both my comment and the one it replies to largely do not touch even this discussion, their shtick is property rights and mine is substantive discourse. If you think I made a point about censoring unpopular content, you replied to the wrong comment. As to this, fair enough. I had wrongly assumed this comment to be implicitly taking the other side of the GP comment, simply calling for its removal instead of refuting it (you’d be surprised how much things like this happen)

CBLT 6y ago
I have three reasons why the comment they made was not worthwhile. 1. Tiresome; it gets made every thread, rebutted every thread, and no progress is made in the discussion. It's time to stop saying the same thing over and over. 2. In bad faith; it does not respond meaningfully to the discussion. Something being legal does not make it ethically optimal. 3. Inciteful; these comments are lightning rods for emotional arguments in the replies. If a comment always causes low-quality discussion, then it's a low-quality comment. You're free to disagree with my points. I suppose I started the character shitflinging by calling the author a troll, but I really think anybody that's been reading HN for long enough (a decade, in that user's case) can do better if they intend to.