3 ms·

> As far as I can tell, HN mods focus more on how you say something rather than what you say. This is true and I've seen some extremely vile, reprehensible thi

> As far as I can tell, HN mods focus more on how you say something rather than what you say. This is true and I've seen some extremely vile, reprehensible things said, but that went unmoderated because they were said politely (I've actually seen people responding to these vile things get banned because they weren't nearly that polite).

DenisM 6y ago
We don't know what's "vile" for you, and I'm sure you've seen people getting super offended over things that you consider essential discussions. Give us some details?
- Person5478 6y ago
  Advocating for a complete and utter disregard for human life and human experience in the quest for money was the most egregious example. What you're doing here is called Argument to Moderation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation > is the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposing positions. ... > Vladimir Bukovsky maintained that the middle ground between the big lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth was itself a lie, and one should not be looking for a middle ground between information and disinformation. You see it a lot on this site. People want to pretend to be reasonable, which is why we get things like you telling me that you don't know what I consider vile, as if I'm just being unreasonable and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
  - goatcode 6y ago
    Were this 20 years ago, arguing such an authority's point might have been reasonable. However, common values have been questioned to such an extreme extent, admitting that you don't know what someone considers vile isn't entirely unreasonable. There are people nowadays who argue that killing an entire race would have been a great idea, and others who claim that any procreative sexual intercourse is rape, without exception. In the end, you're probably still right, but the past 10 to 15 years have been a bitch for common ground.
    - obviouslynotme 6y ago
      While you aren't technically wrong, those opinions are nowhere near the mainstream. The Internet puts a magnifying glass to the most provoking people in the world and makes them seem common.
      - goatcode 6y ago
        And where are we conversing right now?
  - DenisM 6y ago
    > What you're doing here is called Argument to Moderation I am doing nothing of the sort.
  - jimsmart 6y ago
    > we get things like you telling me that you don't know what I consider vile, as if I'm just being unreasonable and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sorry, but nobody is psychic. You said you had seen some "extremely vile" things, and gave no examples. You were politely asked for some details. Nobody has said they don't believe you at all, in fact the very point that someone has asked you to provide examples rather implies that such things do occur, hence you being given the chance to explain what you, personally, mean by "extremely vile" in this case. Nobody claimed you were being unreasonable, nor was it inferred, AFAICT. That seems pretty darn reasonable to me. It's certainly not how conversation would likely go on many other social platforms. Unless examples are given here by yourself, nobody can even arrive at your claimed "truth is somewhere in the middle" point of view — your comment merely becomes throwaway. Which, on this site, generally isn't how things are done — unless of course you are being unreasonable about things (in which case the downvotes will fix things pretty quickly). Edit: I feel this point from HN's "Guidelines" page (linked at the bottom of every page) is fairly relevant here: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." — the poster asking you for examples is doing this, your response: less so.
dang 6y ago
When people make grand claims about egregious moderation failures like this, they never supply links. That's because, nearly always, the reality of what happened tells quite a different story. I'd like to see what you're talking about, that is so vile and reprehensible, and I bet fair-minded HN readers would like to see that as well, so they can make up their own minds.
- Person5478 6y ago
  I never said it was a moderation failure, as I said it was politely given. And I'm not providing links because I don't have them, these are things I've noted over the years as a lurker. There's so much back patting about the moderation on this site that I'm often miffed that no one sees the negative consequences. No system or approach is perfect, and the approach you guys take on this site has its share of downsides as well. I once saw a person on this site argue all safety regulations should be gotten rid of and let the market decide the cost. The theory is that as more accidents happen the insurance will rise and that will self-correct by causing companies to enforce their own internal safety requirements. The implication being it's ok for Bob to live the rest of his life without a leg because the company was willing to pay the insurance premium. That Bob's quality of life shouldn't factor into the equation. The problem is that when someone has an opinion like this, they cannot be put down as strongly as they should. "In real life" if someone walks into a public space and announces they believe a 30 year old should be able to enter into a sexual relationship with a 10 year old, not only would there be a reaction, there would be a __very strong reaction__, and the strength of that reaction is a part of the policing we do amongst ourselves as a society. But because of the values this site has, if someone were to express that opinion on these boards, the people getting banned would be the ones reacting strongly. And _THAT_ is why I agreed with the other poster that you do, in fact, moderate based upon HOW someone says something while pointing out that it has its downsides.

DenisM 6y ago

We don't know what's "vile" for you, and I'm sure you've seen people getting super offended over things that you consider essential discussions. Give us some details?

Person5478 6y ago
Advocating for a complete and utter disregard for human life and human experience in the quest for money was the most egregious example. What you're doing here is called Argument to Moderation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation > is the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposing positions. ... > Vladimir Bukovsky maintained that the middle ground between the big lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth was itself a lie, and one should not be looking for a middle ground between information and disinformation. You see it a lot on this site. People want to pretend to be reasonable, which is why we get things like you telling me that you don't know what I consider vile, as if I'm just being unreasonable and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
- goatcode 6y ago
  Were this 20 years ago, arguing such an authority's point might have been reasonable. However, common values have been questioned to such an extreme extent, admitting that you don't know what someone considers vile isn't entirely unreasonable. There are people nowadays who argue that killing an entire race would have been a great idea, and others who claim that any procreative sexual intercourse is rape, without exception. In the end, you're probably still right, but the past 10 to 15 years have been a bitch for common ground.
  - obviouslynotme 6y ago
    While you aren't technically wrong, those opinions are nowhere near the mainstream. The Internet puts a magnifying glass to the most provoking people in the world and makes them seem common.
    - goatcode 6y ago
      And where are we conversing right now?
- DenisM 6y ago
  > What you're doing here is called Argument to Moderation I am doing nothing of the sort.
- jimsmart 6y ago
  > we get things like you telling me that you don't know what I consider vile, as if I'm just being unreasonable and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sorry, but nobody is psychic. You said you had seen some "extremely vile" things, and gave no examples. You were politely asked for some details. Nobody has said they don't believe you at all, in fact the very point that someone has asked you to provide examples rather implies that such things do occur, hence you being given the chance to explain what you, personally, mean by "extremely vile" in this case. Nobody claimed you were being unreasonable, nor was it inferred, AFAICT. That seems pretty darn reasonable to me. It's certainly not how conversation would likely go on many other social platforms. Unless examples are given here by yourself, nobody can even arrive at your claimed "truth is somewhere in the middle" point of view — your comment merely becomes throwaway. Which, on this site, generally isn't how things are done — unless of course you are being unreasonable about things (in which case the downvotes will fix things pretty quickly). Edit: I feel this point from HN's "Guidelines" page (linked at the bottom of every page) is fairly relevant here: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." — the poster asking you for examples is doing this, your response: less so.

dang 6y ago

When people make grand claims about egregious moderation failures like this, they never supply links. That's because, nearly always, the reality of what happened tells quite a different story. I'd like to see what you're talking about, that is so vile and reprehensible, and I bet fair-minded HN readers would like to see that as well, so they can make up their own minds.

Person5478 6y ago
I never said it was a moderation failure, as I said it was politely given. And I'm not providing links because I don't have them, these are things I've noted over the years as a lurker. There's so much back patting about the moderation on this site that I'm often miffed that no one sees the negative consequences. No system or approach is perfect, and the approach you guys take on this site has its share of downsides as well. I once saw a person on this site argue all safety regulations should be gotten rid of and let the market decide the cost. The theory is that as more accidents happen the insurance will rise and that will self-correct by causing companies to enforce their own internal safety requirements. The implication being it's ok for Bob to live the rest of his life without a leg because the company was willing to pay the insurance premium. That Bob's quality of life shouldn't factor into the equation. The problem is that when someone has an opinion like this, they cannot be put down as strongly as they should. "In real life" if someone walks into a public space and announces they believe a 30 year old should be able to enter into a sexual relationship with a 10 year old, not only would there be a reaction, there would be a __very strong reaction__, and the strength of that reaction is a part of the policing we do amongst ourselves as a society. But because of the values this site has, if someone were to express that opinion on these boards, the people getting banned would be the ones reacting strongly. And _THAT_ is why I agreed with the other poster that you do, in fact, moderate based upon HOW someone says something while pointing out that it has its downsides.