5 ms·

Neither of those things will happen. We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere. Dishonest repor

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• simion314 6y ago
  >This is one of the reasons I believe social media sites should enact age-based voting. I am not sure this works, on HN for example is easy enough for a small mob to disappear articles by flagging them, on top of that we get no reason why things were flagged or any way to undo it. Account age or karma is not enough, we need much more, make it harder to share/downvote or flag , like by making someone type at least 60 words and ban the accounts for abuse.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    Accounts that act poorly, usually do so in multiple ways. Banning accounts for bad behavior will likely curb other undetectable bad behavior. HN is a bit unique. I suspect it is less influenced by bad behavior because it is small enough to fly under the radar.
    • simion314 6y ago
      You would think so because is hard to notice, I would not have believed it until I seen it with my own eyes, it was an article about RMS and there was a good discussion in the comments , in 5-10 minutes the entry was gone from the first pages, it was flagged, I think there were around 2-- comments in the end but most readers missed the article and instead they could see more then one day old stuff. My proposal is to have people do a bit of work not just click a button, write an intelligent argument, it would at least filter the lazy ones out. It is similar when you know someone will review your code you double check your commit first and clean things up, someone might decide that the reason might not be as defendable so maybe a discussion should happen on this topic .
      • pseudalopex 6y ago
        People started flagging anything about Stallman because there were over 100 submissions in 2 weeks.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26713636
        • simion314 6y ago
          Yeah, but if feels not right , people should use the down vote button , then if the majority pressed down then up then is clearly something it should not be discussed. It is not right that a small number of individuals could hide something, because there is not an equivalent mechanism for a similar number of people to un-flag it. There were different articles about RMS, so why an article that has Red Hat in it's name should stay and other that has an author less prestigious should be hidden, I mean let the community decide, we always repeat ourselves in comments when we talk about latest Apple,Facebook or Google shit so if the users upvote and discuss something then don't fucking hide it, it means it is on topic, the nes that don't want to engage can skip the article or downvote it and upvote soem other article instead that is more interesting.
          • jcranmer 6y ago
            You can't downvote articles; you can only flag them [if you want to express disapproval].
            • fsflover 6y ago
              You can also hide them. Flagging means something serious.
            • simion314 6y ago
              Yeah, I was confused, we can't downvote. IMO flag should only be used for offtopic or content that is against side rules. I nenver flagged any submission, even if I think is offtopic or low quality, I can ignore it, maybe the people that engaged it have other opinion so why I should decide for others what should they see on the home page. My proposal might not be better , so I admit I can be wrong and I let the HN stuff to do their job how they think is best, just wanted to tell my opinion that even here stuff might be hidden for you because a small number of people decided it.
    • GuB-42 6y ago
      HN has a system where submissions get flagged and possibly downranked if the number of comments exceeds its score as it is indicative of a flame war. It is the opposite of what social media that optimize for "engagement" do. The HN community also has a habit of downranking controversial topics. For example, subjects like women in tech and racism tend to get buried quickly. It is not that these are not worth talking about, but I think keeping these out help a great deal at preventing bad behavior to emerge. For me, it is a win, and it is not like places where you can talk politics are lacking on the net.
      • simion314 6y ago
        I prefer forums with clear rules, and if something is flagged then it should be only if is against a specific rule. I am not sure if is more preferable to debate the merit of yet another incomplete Tic-Tac-Toe in Rust then having a pasionate debate on app stores, free software or X. Blame wars should be fixed differently IMO, you could temporary ban accounts that do not respect the rules, users can report comments and indicate the rule that is broken, this require better moderation and clear rules. Though, I am not sure if HN could implement this, is too big and probably mi preferences work better on smaller niche forums with a few good moderators and a community that cares about the quality and pushes the participants to communicate in the allowed rules.
  • wrycoder 6y ago
    Vouching appears to undo flagging. More people should vouch, if they see abuse.
• kazinator 6y ago
  > We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere. You mean, only in some non-asshole way, so that we don't look exactly like them?
  • bogwog 6y ago
    > so that we don't look exactly like them? How about not be like them at all? People are stupid, but they can learn from their mistakes, and society can help them by accepting an apology rather than shunning them forever.
    • luckylion 6y ago
      What if they don't (want to) learn, and don't apologize (like these journalists and their companies likely won't). How often, and how long, do we hope for them to see the error in their ways, repent and become forces for good? And how much harm do we tolerate while we're waiting for them to see the light?
      • krapp 6y ago
        You're right. Better to burn the witches quickly. Deus Vult.
        • luckylion 6y ago
          I understand that reply to mean that you don't want any rule-enforcement, ever? That's really the only reading that makes sense with that kind of comment to my question of how much, and how long, should be tolerated.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• 908B64B197 6y ago
  > Dishonest reporting, and amplifying of dishonest posts on social media is not something you will ever get an apology for, because those efforts were never meant to survive scrutiny. They were meant to create "pressure" to cause reputational damage. Exactly. The correct way of handling these instances of bad behavior is to block, shadowban and ignore.
  • Uhhrrr 6y ago
    I think mockery is better than blocking. Many of the people involved have convinced each other they have the moral high ground.
• salawat 6y ago
  >This is one of the reasons I believe social media sites should enact age-based voting. Such that older accounts that have withstood the reputational scrutiny, have greater influence. Then those accounts just become hot commodities, or you front load a bunch of accurate reporting about banal stuff and bank that credibility for when you want to go fangs out. Think about it, that's how we've gotten into the "post-trust" situation we're in now. Age does not against bullshittery confer protection. No technical measure will. No edifice is permanent except that in the churn, some people with standards will rise in spite of it all. They'll get torn at at every opportunity, but it's also why critical thinking is everyone's job. You can't delegate it. Nobody can be a habitual follower by default. You have to check. So many firms exist with the sole purpose of perception/crisis management simply because it is so powerful a tool. No one can protect you from having to think and come to your own conclusions. I thought differently for years. That the media could be trusted for having skin in the game, and dedication to the ideals and tenets of their profession. Then I learned about how crushlingly pragmatic the world is. Either you acknowledge it, and plot your way around it, or you get run over by it. I leave with a few quotes and a rather notorious person who rammed home an illustration of this point. >In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. -Abraham Lincoln, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858, Debate with Stephen Douglas >Whatever is right can be achieved through the irresistible power of awakened and informed public opinion. Our object, therefore, is not to inquire whether a thing can be done, but whether it ought to be done, and if it ought to be done, to so exert the forces of publicity that public opinion will compel it to be done. -William Randolph Hearst, unpublished editorial memorandum, date unknown >"You furnish the pictures, and I will furnish the war." - also William Randolph Hearst https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173692 https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173692 Make no mistake. The Fifth Estate is a pseudo-Governmental entity for a reason, and as a citizen, demands due diligence before letting one's sense of the world get run away with.
• beachwood23 6y ago
  > We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere. How do you distinguish between dishonesty and honesty? Who gets to determine that? It sounds like you are attempting to block the people who blocked other people. It isn't a good cycle to get into. Listening to arguments we disagree with is going to be incredibly valuable in the coming years. Not everyone is arguing bad-faith. There are some people who genuinely believe different things. Addressing those differences directly, through open discussion, will be much more productive than a procedure to "identify and eliminate".
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    > How do you distinguish between dishonesty and honesty? Who gets to determine that? There are two types of communities, in my opinion. ...and most, like HN, fall somewhere in the middle. There's the community that's open to all, doesn't censor anything, and is flooded with low-quality or manipulated content. Then there are the communities that are private. They have groups of mature people who DO appreciate different opinions, and are able to engage in constructive discourse. Obviously dishonest content, as judged by older accounts or mods, are removed. Ideally older or high-reputation accounts have greater voting weight. The danger in the latter is that the community loses the diversity of thought if those top accounts misuse their power to direct a narrative, but as these private communities are numerous - participants can simply leave. You could even make the argument that they could be paid communities, if the quality and analysis of the community is high. For example, I pay to belong to the Arms Control Wonk Discord channel because that community provides detailed analysis on international events on WMDs/conflicts that you cannot find elsewhere. It is low on advocacy, and high on analysis. HN is in the middle. They ban poor quality accounts, but it's still a free and open forum. For now it works, but as it becomes more popular, I've noticed a decline in content quality and an increase in advocacy.