3 ms·

It is scary how wrong you are. I think that you are speaking of facebook, not hn. The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. As fa

It is scary how wrong you are. I think that you are speaking of facebook, not hn. The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform and in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. At worst it was debunked by the community. Now, at the opposite, in my opinion, every article and opinion can be posted on HN. And the real value here are the comments and discussion around these links so that there can be a collective critical thinking réflexion about them. Whoever can post anything, and sometimes I'm wondering if the article is true, if there are hidden fact or something that was deformed. And then, the comments let people all give their own opinion and often share interesting relating links and information. From all of that, it give you a better base to have plentyfull of elements to make your own opinion on a topic!

stouset 6y ago
> The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. By what mechanism? It's a basic reddit-style forum that allows comments and up- and down-voting. What's the secret sauce that causes Hacker News to "support critical thinking"? The answer isn't secret, and it's pretty simple: there are commenting guidelines[1]. If you don't follow the guidelines, your posts are killed. If you repeatedly don't follow the guidelines, your account is restricted. This is the same exact mechanism that distinguishes subreddits with high-quality comment sections (/r/science, /r/askhistorians) from the rest. And it's worth noting that even the rest have some forms of moderation. You'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere on the Internet with no moderation that hasn't become an absolute cesspool dominated by the worst possible actors. > As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform If I'm reading this right, you acknowledge that @dang and co have the power to moderate Hacker News essentially however they see fit, and yet you simultaneously recognize that they're capable of exercising these powers judiciously and only when needed. Maybe sit back and reflect on that for a minute. > ...in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. You can literally see a graveyard of three dead comments on this very thread, that are invisible to anyone who doesn't have `showdead` flag turned on. It's not remotely difficult to find accounts whose posts are hidden by default from the community as a whole, to the point where some people make a point of notifying individuals who've been commenting for years without realizing that nobody can see their posts. The fact that you don't personally see moderation is not evidence that there's no moderation. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kortilla 6y ago
  The community guidelines and moderation are around personal attacks. Nobody is banned for complaining about election fraud.
  - stouset 6y ago
    Amongst numerous others that have nothing to do with personal attacks, one of the guidelines is: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Baseless, unsubstantiated, and repeated complaints about election fraud could easily be argued to fall afoul of this guideline and I would not be personally surprised to find [dead] comments here along such lines.

stouset 6y ago

> The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. By what mechanism? It's a basic reddit-style forum that allows comments and up- and down-voting. What's the secret sauce that causes Hacker News to "support critical thinking"? The answer isn't secret, and it's pretty simple: there are commenting guidelines[1]. If you don't follow the guidelines, your posts are killed. If you repeatedly don't follow the guidelines, your account is restricted. This is the same exact mechanism that distinguishes subreddits with high-quality comment sections (/r/science, /r/askhistorians) from the rest. And it's worth noting that even the rest have some forms of moderation. You'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere on the Internet with no moderation that hasn't become an absolute cesspool dominated by the worst possible actors. > As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform If I'm reading this right, you acknowledge that @dang and co have the power to moderate Hacker News essentially however they see fit, and yet you simultaneously recognize that they're capable of exercising these powers judiciously and only when needed. Maybe sit back and reflect on that for a minute. > ...in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. You can literally see a graveyard of three dead comments on this very thread, that are invisible to anyone who doesn't have `showdead` flag turned on. It's not remotely difficult to find accounts whose posts are hidden by default from the community as a whole, to the point where some people make a point of notifying individuals who've been commenting for years without realizing that nobody can see their posts. The fact that you don't personally see moderation is not evidence that there's no moderation. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

kortilla 6y ago
The community guidelines and moderation are around personal attacks. Nobody is banned for complaining about election fraud.
- stouset 6y ago
  Amongst numerous others that have nothing to do with personal attacks, one of the guidelines is: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Baseless, unsubstantiated, and repeated complaints about election fraud could easily be argued to fall afoul of this guideline and I would not be personally surprised to find [dead] comments here along such lines.