4 ms·

Flagging is necessary to keep the site on-topic in my opinion. People will happily upvote controversy that has little value or importance to this site.

tpmx 6y ago
It makes for a nice beige set of topics for sure.
- dvt 6y ago
  It's funny you say this, because the topics on HN are actually quite broad. If flagging weren't a thing, all we'd be talking about is Trump this, guns that, free speech this, trans that, racism here, racism there. Now that would be quite boring.
freedomben 6y ago
I agree that flagging has value, but it is grossly misused to suppress discussions that are on topic but are outside of the overton window. Generally speaking I think HN is wonderful, and if staying wonderful means we have to tolerate censorship, I'll gladly make that trade, but I do wish people had thicker skin (that's a problem on all sides by the way).
- wvenable 6y ago
  Individual comments are rarely flagged for anything other than outright spam or harassment. I browse with "show dead" turned on. I have seen entire heated topics killed but that kills both sides of the argument equally. What value is a 500-comment talk-over-each-other argument, fundamentally about politics even if on-topic, on this site? I doesn't seem like something we should waste time on.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    The fallacy here: when you're only exposed to stuff that everyone agrees about, you're missing out.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      Rarely does anyone ever comment to agree on something. And merely being contrarian is not valuable in of itself. If a few things are over-moderated I might be mildly missing out. So what? Humans are fallible. There is no perfect system. You're not arguing that HN is so moderated that it's completely worthless. You're not even getting close to that. So what do we do about a system that isn't perfect but is doing a pretty fine job?
    - rocqua 6y ago
      I have recently found a whole lot of value in figuring out what everybody agrees about. A lot of the time that is right. And when it is wrong, it is good to know, and encourages (me at least) to really figure out why the fence is there before I remove it.
    - dmos62 6y ago
      That's a weak statement, because it's easy to demonstrate that popular opinion can be misguided.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    I agree with you, my opposition is actually regarding posts. I have been active on a number of posts over the last couple of years that were very much on topic but were on controversial issues, and they will get flagged to death after being on the front page for a few minutes, and at that point further conversation is dead and the post sinks into irrelevance.
- type0 6y ago
  > if staying wonderful means we have to tolerate censorship, The rules to stay on topic is not the same as censorship. Often I noticed people talk (write) past each other and get into misunderstandings; it happens to me I'll admit.
dmos62 6y ago
> controversy that has little value or importance to this site What do you mean by "this site"? The participants in this forum are the site. I've had discussions flagged that I thought to be valuable. Why would you want to get rid of controversy anyway? Do you want to discuss only popular old hat things? Stability under diversity is a sign of health in an ecosystem.
- wvenable 6y ago
  Participants want to discuss politics, current events, sports, etc. But this site is Hacker News and it is for specific subject matter. If you want to discuss off-topic controversies, there's an entire Internet full of sites to have that discussion on.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    I've seen purely technical discussions being removed from page 1 just because some people really wanted that stuff to go away, and had the power to make it happen.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      Where's this technical discussion? Lets see if I agree with you. Because I've seen people totally make up stuff to make a point.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - dmos62 6y ago
    I've expanded about what I think about this in the neighboring comments. I'd like to ask this though. When you feel that a thread is going off-topic, to the detriment of the forum, please post a comment pointing that out. Others might disagree with you, or they might see your point. What I find really problematic is when a discussion that I care about is flagged without any input. I perceive it as spiteful, because usually it's me having a controversial opinion, and I'm more likely to be spiteful in turn, though of course I try not to be. I don't mind people questioning the quality of my contribution. I actually welcome it, because I care. Just don't reject it off-hand.

tpmx 6y ago

It makes for a nice beige set of topics for sure.

dvt 6y ago
It's funny you say this, because the topics on HN are actually quite broad. If flagging weren't a thing, all we'd be talking about is Trump this, guns that, free speech this, trans that, racism here, racism there. Now that would be quite boring.

freedomben 6y ago

I agree that flagging has value, but it is grossly misused to suppress discussions that are on topic but are outside of the overton window. Generally speaking I think HN is wonderful, and if staying wonderful means we have to tolerate censorship, I'll gladly make that trade, but I do wish people had thicker skin (that's a problem on all sides by the way).

wvenable 6y ago
Individual comments are rarely flagged for anything other than outright spam or harassment. I browse with "show dead" turned on. I have seen entire heated topics killed but that kills both sides of the argument equally. What value is a 500-comment talk-over-each-other argument, fundamentally about politics even if on-topic, on this site? I doesn't seem like something we should waste time on.
- tpmx 6y ago
  The fallacy here: when you're only exposed to stuff that everyone agrees about, you're missing out.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    Rarely does anyone ever comment to agree on something. And merely being contrarian is not valuable in of itself. If a few things are over-moderated I might be mildly missing out. So what? Humans are fallible. There is no perfect system. You're not arguing that HN is so moderated that it's completely worthless. You're not even getting close to that. So what do we do about a system that isn't perfect but is doing a pretty fine job?
  - rocqua 6y ago
    I have recently found a whole lot of value in figuring out what everybody agrees about. A lot of the time that is right. And when it is wrong, it is good to know, and encourages (me at least) to really figure out why the fence is there before I remove it.
  - dmos62 6y ago
    That's a weak statement, because it's easy to demonstrate that popular opinion can be misguided.
- freedomben 6y ago
  I agree with you, my opposition is actually regarding posts. I have been active on a number of posts over the last couple of years that were very much on topic but were on controversial issues, and they will get flagged to death after being on the front page for a few minutes, and at that point further conversation is dead and the post sinks into irrelevance.
type0 6y ago
> if staying wonderful means we have to tolerate censorship, The rules to stay on topic is not the same as censorship. Often I noticed people talk (write) past each other and get into misunderstandings; it happens to me I'll admit.

dmos62 6y ago

> controversy that has little value or importance to this site What do you mean by "this site"? The participants in this forum are the site. I've had discussions flagged that I thought to be valuable. Why would you want to get rid of controversy anyway? Do you want to discuss only popular old hat things? Stability under diversity is a sign of health in an ecosystem.

wvenable 6y ago
Participants want to discuss politics, current events, sports, etc. But this site is Hacker News and it is for specific subject matter. If you want to discuss off-topic controversies, there's an entire Internet full of sites to have that discussion on.
- tpmx 6y ago
  I've seen purely technical discussions being removed from page 1 just because some people really wanted that stuff to go away, and had the power to make it happen.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    Where's this technical discussion? Lets see if I agree with you. Because I've seen people totally make up stuff to make a point.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- dmos62 6y ago
  I've expanded about what I think about this in the neighboring comments. I'd like to ask this though. When you feel that a thread is going off-topic, to the detriment of the forum, please post a comment pointing that out. Others might disagree with you, or they might see your point. What I find really problematic is when a discussion that I care about is flagged without any input. I perceive it as spiteful, because usually it's me having a controversial opinion, and I'm more likely to be spiteful in turn, though of course I try not to be. I don't mind people questioning the quality of my contribution. I actually welcome it, because I care. Just don't reject it off-hand.