3 ms·

Can someone explain why sibling comment is flagged into oblivion? Is there any sound evidence that meritocracy and "equity" are compatible? If not, I don't see

Can someone explain why sibling comment is flagged into oblivion? Is there any sound evidence that meritocracy and "equity" are compatible? If not, I don't see why sibling comment's position is false, and I don't see how it breaks site guidelines either.

dang 5y ago
If you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720, it is clearly an ideological battle comment (almost a prototype actually) and therefore obviously against the site guidelines. We want curious conversation here. Not only do ideological battle and curiosity not overlap, the former destroys the latter, like a tank battle in a city park. If people can't post in the intended curious spirit, they shouldn't post at all; and if they do anyway, flags are the appropriate outcome—no? I'm not sure why this would be unclear.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  The article is about a scientist who was pressured into retracting a paper over ideological reasons rather than scientific reasons. It would be understandable if HN were opposed to posts and comments that "do ideological battle," but that doesn't appear to be the case. If HN's editorial policy is that "ideological battle" may be waged with impunity by one side but may not be called out by the other, that's deeply troubling. How can there be curious conversation if an honest and frank discussion is disallowed? There's a huge social upheaval occurring, with a large number of people trying to change the status quo to focus on equity in outcome over equality in opportunity. I respectfully disagree with the idea that selectively stifling speech on just one side of that discussion will somehow make discussion more curious and open, instead of less.
  - dang 5y ago
    Everyone whose favorite side gets moderated thinks that the moderators are secretly favoring the other side*. The thing is, the other side thinks we're favoring yours; I could give you dozens if not hundreds of examples. Here's an old list: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 – there are many more than that, and plenty of cases of people attacking us personally for siding with your side, which they perceive as dominating the site. These perceptions are all false; they're determined not by what the moderators are actually doing, or how the site actually is, but by your/their own passions. I think this is literally the most predictable phenomenon that shows up on HN—it's so reliable that one can confidently predict people's politics simply by their assessment of moderator (and/or community) bias. > How can there be curious conversation if an honest and frank discussion is disallowed? An honest and frank discussion is not disallowed. What's disallowed is ideological rhetoric that seeks to defeat the other side instead of relate to it. That's deeply destructive of curiosity. If we were to allow it, it would actually drive everyone who isn't consumed by such passions away from HN, and that would be the death of HN. If you want to smite enemies, there are lots of other places to do it. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Not sure what you think "my side" is, but I appreciate the response. I know you have better things to do. Sorry for the meta-discussion.

dang 5y ago

If you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29217720, it is clearly an ideological battle comment (almost a prototype actually) and therefore obviously against the site guidelines. We want curious conversation here. Not only do ideological battle and curiosity not overlap, the former destroys the latter, like a tank battle in a city park. If people can't post in the intended curious spirit, they shouldn't post at all; and if they do anyway, flags are the appropriate outcome—no? I'm not sure why this would be unclear.

torstenvl 5y ago
The article is about a scientist who was pressured into retracting a paper over ideological reasons rather than scientific reasons. It would be understandable if HN were opposed to posts and comments that "do ideological battle," but that doesn't appear to be the case. If HN's editorial policy is that "ideological battle" may be waged with impunity by one side but may not be called out by the other, that's deeply troubling. How can there be curious conversation if an honest and frank discussion is disallowed? There's a huge social upheaval occurring, with a large number of people trying to change the status quo to focus on equity in outcome over equality in opportunity. I respectfully disagree with the idea that selectively stifling speech on just one side of that discussion will somehow make discussion more curious and open, instead of less.
- dang 5y ago
  Everyone whose favorite side gets moderated thinks that the moderators are secretly favoring the other side*. The thing is, the other side thinks we're favoring yours; I could give you dozens if not hundreds of examples. Here's an old list: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 – there are many more than that, and plenty of cases of people attacking us personally for siding with your side, which they perceive as dominating the site. These perceptions are all false; they're determined not by what the moderators are actually doing, or how the site actually is, but by your/their own passions. I think this is literally the most predictable phenomenon that shows up on HN—it's so reliable that one can confidently predict people's politics simply by their assessment of moderator (and/or community) bias. > How can there be curious conversation if an honest and frank discussion is disallowed? An honest and frank discussion is not disallowed. What's disallowed is ideological rhetoric that seeks to defeat the other side instead of relate to it. That's deeply destructive of curiosity. If we were to allow it, it would actually drive everyone who isn't consumed by such passions away from HN, and that would be the death of HN. If you want to smite enemies, there are lots of other places to do it. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22always%20feels%22%20mods%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Not sure what you think "my side" is, but I appreciate the response. I know you have better things to do. Sorry for the meta-discussion.