5 ms·

The notion that HN is well-moderated is bizarre. HN is exceptionally hostile to those who hold beliefs contrary to HN-acceptable norms. If you want to get ban

The notion that HN is well-moderated is bizarre. HN is exceptionally hostile to those who hold beliefs contrary to HN-acceptable norms. If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg portfolio companies (even politely, with valid criticism), point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite; point out that responses to hate speech are _not_ tolerated..... The community here used to be absolutely amazing. 10-15 years ago the discussions here were actionable, and I was able to make valuable professional connections in the the comments. These days, that doesn’t happen. The discussions are lower value, less open minded, and more strident. It’s a pile of shit. And candidly, that’s why I’m logged into a banned account to post this. Uncomfortable truths can’t be posted from IPs/cookies/users that you want to preserve. Daniel Gackle will ban your ass if you point out, for example, that he tolerates and even welcomes extremely bigoted shit.

ardfard 5y ago
> If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg portfolio companies (even politely, with valid criticism), point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite; point out that responses to hate speech are _not_ tolerated..... I don't think this is true, or I just don't see any evidence it. Take a look a this HN yesterday thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26782031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26782031. Neither PG nor his YC companies are immune to criticism.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 5y ago
> These days, that doesn’t happen. The discussions are lower value, less open minded, and more strident. It’s a pile of shit. The decline of open-mindedness is what I've noticed the most. The assumption of good intention on the part of someone with an opposing view. The willingness to at least entertain a thought or argument, even if you ultimately don't accept it. Much easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, satisfied in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. There are definitely points of view here, no matter how well articulated, that will be buried in low-contrast purgatory very quickly. And I'm not just talking about "white supremacy" type stuff.
- type0 5y ago
  > The willingness to at least entertain a thought or argument, even if you ultimately don't accept it. Much easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, satisfied in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. Yes, but at least unpleasant discussions usually just stop at that, unlike Reddit or even worse Twitter where you get a shitstorm of insults.
- rocqua 5y ago
  I think that decline of willingness happened in society at large. It's simply now reaching hackernews. There is very little that can be done to fix this at the level of HN. It will probably require a shift in broader society.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > Much easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, satisfied in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. This is good, do this. The worst thing in threads IMO is endless subthreads attached to low-effort troll comments. Just downvote and move on. If the comment contains a factual misstatement, maybe post a quick note saying why it is incorrect, with a reference.
  - Banana699 5y ago
    >low-effort troll comments This is the crux of the matter, how do you know a comment is a troll, rather than an honestly held and expressed contraversial view? parent's point is that you can't in general. So it's up to defaults: default to assuming bad faith and you will be rewarded with swift oppression of trolls but also honest mavericks whose contraversy help stir things up and invigorate discussions, default to assuming good faith and you tolerate both with mixed results. There is no easy answer. Recommended read on this is Paul Graham's "What you can't say"[0], a timeless piece on how the bathwater of offensive and unpopular opinions always contain the baby of non-conformist truth, and you don't know in advance which is which, so you need to tolerate the first lest it is actually the second in disguise. [0]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
    - 5y ago
fouric 5y ago
> Daniel Gackle will ban your ass if you point out, for example, that he tolerates and even welcomes extremely bigoted shit. Citation needed - this claim is very far from my own experience. If you think you'll be banned, then email me with your evidence and I'll look at it.
- pwr33 5y ago
  He usually bans people for using mean words. If you express some completely heinous ideas in polite, mostly grammatical writing then normally you will not be banned. This is based on my experience of over a decade of various accounts and occasional banning on "Hacker" News.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - amznthrwaway 5y ago
    I’d absolutely agree with this. He moderates in a way that is intended to create comfort for an in-group. It’s a “safe space” for a specific type of person.
baryphonic 5y ago
> If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg portfolio companies (even politely, with valid criticism), point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite; point out that responses to hate speech are _not_ tolerated..... > > The community here used to be absolutely amazing. 10-15 years ago the discussions here were actionable, and I was able to make valuable professional connections in the the comments. > > These days, that doesn’t happen. The discussions are lower value, less open minded, and more strident. It’s a pile of shit. > > And candidly, that’s why I’m logged into a banned account to post this. Uncomfortable truths can’t be posted from IPs/cookies/users that you want to preserve. Daniel Gackle will ban your ass if you point out, for example, that he tolerates and even welcomes extremely bigoted shit. This entire comment is one of the most closed-minded, "lower value" comments I've seen on HN recently. Complaining about how comments aren't open-minded, and also that "hate speech" and "bigoted shit" is the norm is something of a contradiction. If one is open-minded, he should be tolerant even of "hate speech." He should also be open to the ideas that hate speech is both very real or not real at all. Censoriousness is inextricably closed-minded. I can't speak to PG portfolio criticism, but I think dang does yeoman's work in moderation. Only once have I seen a decision that I thought was harsh, and I think everyone is entitled to a bad day every now and then. If you walked into my house and started berating and insulting me, I'd probably have a dim view of you, too. Also, how are you posting from a banned account? That seems to go against the nature of being banned.
- cassepipe 5y ago
  Hate speech is a priori not very reasonable so getting rid of it is not a matter a censorship but of getting rid of what stand in the way of thoughtful discussions. Also I don't think "in my house" metaphor has had much success. Which seems fair : Hacker News is not PG's house, although it is his baby, he handed moderation power over to the users, the algorithm and the moderators. Which is why we like it and trust it and use it. You can't just compare anything to one on one relationships, it does not work like that.
vict7 5y ago
As someone that just stopped lurking, it's clear downvoting is used primarily as a "disagree" button. Case in point, this comment I'm replying to. I believe they're making a meaningful contribution to this discussion. Yet the downvotes have already commenced.
- kodah 5y ago
  Take a look at GP's previous comments and their contexts.
  - dang 5y ago
    Just remember that that will only give the part of the story which is linked to that one username. Commenters who post grand narratives about why they were banned typically have a long string of past banned accounts. The giveaway is that they never link to them. That would let readers make up their own minds about why they'd gotten banned, and how accurate their story really is. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22make%20up%20their%20own%20minds%22%20link&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
    - kodah 5y ago
      Oh for sure. In this case, just looking at their comments it's pretty clear why they've been banned.
- klyrs 5y ago
  The person you're replying to is shadowbanned, and their post actually got vouched for, but still (I think) starts off at a deficit. Looking at your comment history, it looks like you enjoy wading into political conversations with strongly-held opinions. Food for thought, I'd have downvoted some of your comments that I agree with because they bring down the quality of the conversation.
  - vict7 5y ago
    Hey I truly appreciate the honesty! I can't easily assess the exact reason why I got downvotes without comments like this. Thanks for filling me in!
snowflake_ptr 5y ago
Given your claims of "white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed [...] extremely bigoted shit" being both completely inconsistent with my experience, and the specific things that you are claiming are present, it seems far more likely that you've been banned for the kinds of social authoritarianism (trying to control the speech and thoughts of others) that is particularly popular among a certain political faction lately than those things actually being prevalent and accepted.
Debug_Overload 5y ago
I'm not sure about the companies but pg's stuff regularly gets criticized on here (even harshly sometimes, I think). Just a few days ago, there was one such story (highly upvoted) on the front page in response to one of pg's essays.
krapp 5y ago
>point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite; point out that responses to hate speech are _not_ tolerated..... To be fair, much of the overtly racist and bigoted content I've seen lately has gotten voted down and flagged, and I've seen Dan step in and stand against it on a few occasions. I don't know if this is the result of a shift in my perceptions or in the community, but to me it seems like things were far worse a few years ago, and now at least a few of the notorious bad accounts have been banned. It's certainly not a paradise, God knows any time race, religion or gender comes up this place often winds up validating its execrable reputation, but I do think the mods are trying. It's not their fault the tech community is being taken over by incels and neo-reactionary fascists.
pessimizer 5y ago
You're going to get downvoted and flagged to hell, but I mostly agree with your comment - there was a precipitous quality drop that came with the heavy moderation that people now think of as the identifying characteristic of HN. That being said, I think that after a few egregious missteps (such as the test ban on "politics"), the heavy moderation has been open and kind. I also suspect that there has been some mod meddling to keep my lefty-ass comments visible more than once. I would like to point out that this is a silicon valley/SF tech forum; considering the demo, to mod out all of the vile sexist/race-realist objectivist bleating would be crushing. Just argue back. The left-liberal addiction to manager-calling is ruining their ability to defend their positions, heavily moderated "safe spaces" really become places where people can repeat their beliefs by rote, free from challenges. The reason libertarians are wrong is because their philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, not because it's upsetting. Practice in putting them down refines your own beliefs.
- dang 5y ago
  Only about 10% of the HN community was anywhere near SV or SF, last time I checked.
- amznthrwaway 5y ago
  This is a right/authoritarian heavily moderated “safe space” where people who hold specific right-wing beliefs can repeat those beliefs by rote, free from challenges. You’ll struggle to find highly rated comments that support anti-trust initiatives or closer regulation of the tech industry. You won’t find a lot of highly rated comments that contain meaningful critique of any YC company, or many advocating higher taxes on companies or the rich. Just by making my comments, I had people accusing me of “social authoritarianism”. Because my complaint that my viewpoint is not always welcomed was, in their mind, proof that I was trying to “forbid” them from thoughts. I’d say more, but I’m banned from posting with any frequency on this account. Again... that is because this is a heavily moderated safe space. That said, I’d argue that there’s no value in putting together a strong argument here anymore. People are rewarded for writing a few pointless sentences that sound smart and agree with the common view. They are not rewarded for intelligent challenge. Voting is used to reward agreement with a viewpoint, and to punish disagreement.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg portfolio companies I've done that. Not been banned. > point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite Well, I mean, aside from being false, that’s also going to often be a specific labelling of something here as “white supremacist” or “hate speech”; flagging exists pretty specifically to deal with content where that description actually applies without sidetracking conversations with incendiary debate about whether it does. So, yeah, comments doing that will be flagged and moderated and, if thet persist, will likely get you banned. > And candidly, that’s why I’m logged into a banned account to post this. If it was banned, you couldn’t post from it. So, since you obviously can, I assume you are misrepresenting the facts when you call it a banned account.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  All their comments start dead. People call it shadow banning or hell banning. And some other accounts have [banned] after the name but keep commenting.
  - kodah 5y ago
    They just posted a new comment that isn't dead. I really doubt HN does that kind of stuff.
    - dang 5y ago
      Comments by banned accounts are killed by software, but other users can vouch for them to unkill them (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). That's what happened in both of those cases.
    - amznthrwaway 5y ago
      No, HN does that stuff. Everything I post starts dead.

ardfard 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 5y ago

> These days, that doesn’t happen. The discussions are lower value, less open minded, and more strident. It’s a pile of shit. The decline of open-mindedness is what I've noticed the most. The assumption of good intention on the part of someone with an opposing view. The willingness to at least entertain a thought or argument, even if you ultimately don't accept it. Much easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, satisfied in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. There are definitely points of view here, no matter how well articulated, that will be buried in low-contrast purgatory very quickly. And I'm not just talking about "white supremacy" type stuff.

type0 5y ago
> The willingness to at least entertain a thought or argument, even if you ultimately don't accept it. Much easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, satisfied in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. Yes, but at least unpleasant discussions usually just stop at that, unlike Reddit or even worse Twitter where you get a shitstorm of insults.
rocqua 5y ago
I think that decline of willingness happened in society at large. It's simply now reaching hackernews. There is very little that can be done to fix this at the level of HN. It will probably require a shift in broader society.
pessimizer 5y ago
> Much easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, satisfied in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. This is good, do this. The worst thing in threads IMO is endless subthreads attached to low-effort troll comments. Just downvote and move on. If the comment contains a factual misstatement, maybe post a quick note saying why it is incorrect, with a reference.
- Banana699 5y ago
  >low-effort troll comments This is the crux of the matter, how do you know a comment is a troll, rather than an honestly held and expressed contraversial view? parent's point is that you can't in general. So it's up to defaults: default to assuming bad faith and you will be rewarded with swift oppression of trolls but also honest mavericks whose contraversy help stir things up and invigorate discussions, default to assuming good faith and you tolerate both with mixed results. There is no easy answer. Recommended read on this is Paul Graham's "What you can't say"[0], a timeless piece on how the bathwater of offensive and unpopular opinions always contain the baby of non-conformist truth, and you don't know in advance which is which, so you need to tolerate the first lest it is actually the second in disguise. [0]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
  - 5y ago

fouric 5y ago

> Daniel Gackle will ban your ass if you point out, for example, that he tolerates and even welcomes extremely bigoted shit. Citation needed - this claim is very far from my own experience. If you think you'll be banned, then email me with your evidence and I'll look at it.

pwr33 5y ago
He usually bans people for using mean words. If you express some completely heinous ideas in polite, mostly grammatical writing then normally you will not be banned. This is based on my experience of over a decade of various accounts and occasional banning on "Hacker" News.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- amznthrwaway 5y ago
  I’d absolutely agree with this. He moderates in a way that is intended to create comfort for an in-group. It’s a “safe space” for a specific type of person.

baryphonic 5y ago

> If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg portfolio companies (even politely, with valid criticism), point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite; point out that responses to hate speech are _not_ tolerated..... > > The community here used to be absolutely amazing. 10-15 years ago the discussions here were actionable, and I was able to make valuable professional connections in the the comments. > > These days, that doesn’t happen. The discussions are lower value, less open minded, and more strident. It’s a pile of shit. > > And candidly, that’s why I’m logged into a banned account to post this. Uncomfortable truths can’t be posted from IPs/cookies/users that you want to preserve. Daniel Gackle will ban your ass if you point out, for example, that he tolerates and even welcomes extremely bigoted shit. This entire comment is one of the most closed-minded, "lower value" comments I've seen on HN recently. Complaining about how comments aren't open-minded, and also that "hate speech" and "bigoted shit" is the norm is something of a contradiction. If one is open-minded, he should be tolerant even of "hate speech." He should also be open to the ideas that hate speech is both very real or not real at all. Censoriousness is inextricably closed-minded. I can't speak to PG portfolio criticism, but I think dang does yeoman's work in moderation. Only once have I seen a decision that I thought was harsh, and I think everyone is entitled to a bad day every now and then. If you walked into my house and started berating and insulting me, I'd probably have a dim view of you, too. Also, how are you posting from a banned account? That seems to go against the nature of being banned.

cassepipe 5y ago
Hate speech is a priori not very reasonable so getting rid of it is not a matter a censorship but of getting rid of what stand in the way of thoughtful discussions. Also I don't think "in my house" metaphor has had much success. Which seems fair : Hacker News is not PG's house, although it is his baby, he handed moderation power over to the users, the algorithm and the moderators. Which is why we like it and trust it and use it. You can't just compare anything to one on one relationships, it does not work like that.

vict7 5y ago

As someone that just stopped lurking, it's clear downvoting is used primarily as a "disagree" button. Case in point, this comment I'm replying to. I believe they're making a meaningful contribution to this discussion. Yet the downvotes have already commenced.

kodah 5y ago
Take a look at GP's previous comments and their contexts.
- dang 5y ago
  Just remember that that will only give the part of the story which is linked to that one username. Commenters who post grand narratives about why they were banned typically have a long string of past banned accounts. The giveaway is that they never link to them. That would let readers make up their own minds about why they'd gotten banned, and how accurate their story really is. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22make%20up%20their%20own%20minds%22%20link&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - kodah 5y ago
    Oh for sure. In this case, just looking at their comments it's pretty clear why they've been banned.
klyrs 5y ago
The person you're replying to is shadowbanned, and their post actually got vouched for, but still (I think) starts off at a deficit. Looking at your comment history, it looks like you enjoy wading into political conversations with strongly-held opinions. Food for thought, I'd have downvoted some of your comments that I agree with because they bring down the quality of the conversation.
- vict7 5y ago
  Hey I truly appreciate the honesty! I can't easily assess the exact reason why I got downvotes without comments like this. Thanks for filling me in!

snowflake_ptr 5y ago

Given your claims of "white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed [...] extremely bigoted shit" being both completely inconsistent with my experience, and the specific things that you are claiming are present, it seems far more likely that you've been banned for the kinds of social authoritarianism (trying to control the speech and thoughts of others) that is particularly popular among a certain political faction lately than those things actually being prevalent and accepted.

Debug_Overload 5y ago

I'm not sure about the companies but pg's stuff regularly gets criticized on here (even harshly sometimes, I think). Just a few days ago, there was one such story (highly upvoted) on the front page in response to one of pg's essays.

krapp 5y ago

>point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite; point out that responses to hate speech are _not_ tolerated..... To be fair, much of the overtly racist and bigoted content I've seen lately has gotten voted down and flagged, and I've seen Dan step in and stand against it on a few occasions. I don't know if this is the result of a shift in my perceptions or in the community, but to me it seems like things were far worse a few years ago, and now at least a few of the notorious bad accounts have been banned. It's certainly not a paradise, God knows any time race, religion or gender comes up this place often winds up validating its execrable reputation, but I do think the mods are trying. It's not their fault the tech community is being taken over by incels and neo-reactionary fascists.

pessimizer 5y ago

You're going to get downvoted and flagged to hell, but I mostly agree with your comment - there was a precipitous quality drop that came with the heavy moderation that people now think of as the identifying characteristic of HN. That being said, I think that after a few egregious missteps (such as the test ban on "politics"), the heavy moderation has been open and kind. I also suspect that there has been some mod meddling to keep my lefty-ass comments visible more than once. I would like to point out that this is a silicon valley/SF tech forum; considering the demo, to mod out all of the vile sexist/race-realist objectivist bleating would be crushing. Just argue back. The left-liberal addiction to manager-calling is ruining their ability to defend their positions, heavily moderated "safe spaces" really become places where people can repeat their beliefs by rote, free from challenges. The reason libertarians are wrong is because their philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, not because it's upsetting. Practice in putting them down refines your own beliefs.

dang 5y ago
Only about 10% of the HN community was anywhere near SV or SF, last time I checked.
amznthrwaway 5y ago
This is a right/authoritarian heavily moderated “safe space” where people who hold specific right-wing beliefs can repeat those beliefs by rote, free from challenges. You’ll struggle to find highly rated comments that support anti-trust initiatives or closer regulation of the tech industry. You won’t find a lot of highly rated comments that contain meaningful critique of any YC company, or many advocating higher taxes on companies or the rich. Just by making my comments, I had people accusing me of “social authoritarianism”. Because my complaint that my viewpoint is not always welcomed was, in their mind, proof that I was trying to “forbid” them from thoughts. I’d say more, but I’m banned from posting with any frequency on this account. Again... that is because this is a heavily moderated safe space. That said, I’d argue that there’s no value in putting together a strong argument here anymore. People are rewarded for writing a few pointless sentences that sound smart and agree with the common view. They are not rewarded for intelligent challenge. Voting is used to reward agreement with a viewpoint, and to punish disagreement.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg portfolio companies I've done that. Not been banned. > point out that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite Well, I mean, aside from being false, that’s also going to often be a specific labelling of something here as “white supremacist” or “hate speech”; flagging exists pretty specifically to deal with content where that description actually applies without sidetracking conversations with incendiary debate about whether it does. So, yeah, comments doing that will be flagged and moderated and, if thet persist, will likely get you banned. > And candidly, that’s why I’m logged into a banned account to post this. If it was banned, you couldn’t post from it. So, since you obviously can, I assume you are misrepresenting the facts when you call it a banned account.

pseudalopex 5y ago
All their comments start dead. People call it shadow banning or hell banning. And some other accounts have [banned] after the name but keep commenting.
- kodah 5y ago
  They just posted a new comment that isn't dead. I really doubt HN does that kind of stuff.
  - dang 5y ago
    Comments by banned accounts are killed by software, but other users can vouch for them to unkill them (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). That's what happened in both of those cases.
  - amznthrwaway 5y ago
    No, HN does that stuff. Everything I post starts dead.