3 ms·
What I am saying is that you are applying the rule of "Be kind" only at the most surface level. You are allowing very unkind posts, as long as they are phrased
by user-the-name 6y ago
What I am saying is that you are applying the rule of "Be kind" only at the most surface level. You are allowing very unkind posts, as long as they are phrased somewhat politely.
- dang 6y agoI'd need to see specific examples where you think that is happening. Certainly it isn't our intention. If we're failing to enforce the guidelines as intended, I need to know about it. People bring this argument up semi-regularly, though always without links, and it has even become a bit of a trope. When I've asked for links in the past, what I've found is either (1) posts we missed (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=likeliest%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) or (2) posts where the interpretation of 'unkindness' is tendentious and mixed with ideological concerns. Of course interpretation is always involved. No two people would make the same set of moderation calls, there will always be edge cases where views differ, and there are cases where we just make mistakes, i.e. our initial interpretation changes after people point out things we didn't see. We're happy to correct those. But it also sometimes happens that people's interpretation goes through an ideological filter, such that pretty much any disagreement with their ideology strikes them as 'unkind'. We can't moderate HN that way. It stretches the meaning of the guideline beyond its scope, which has to do with how people treat each other, not how others treat their views—even if we personally agree with their views.