3 ms·
Why would a site that ostensibly operates under democratic rule need to ban anything?
by ryandvm 15y ago
Why would a site that ostensibly operates under democratic rule need to ban anything?
- pnathan 15y agoAgreed. Banhammers should be used sparingly and in obvious cases.
- sp332 15y agoIt's not undemocratic if most of us agree. e.g. Democratic countries ban murder. See: tyranny of the majority.
- TomOfTTB 15y agoHis point is the majority can just not vote things up where as a ban would be have to be implemented by pg based on the opinion of a subset of the majority. So since voting provides the majority with a means to eliminate the 9/11 posts why would a ban be necessary.
- philwelch 15y agoFrankly, that worked fine for years but recently HN has been going to shit. Being more conscientious as a community about encouraging intellectually stimulating discussion and discouraging demagoguery and sentimentality is something worth talking about.
- gacba 15y agoAgreed, the very concept seems reprehensible amongst this group. Unless John Graham-Cunning is suddenly losing faith in HN community for being able to self-police itself on this kind of drudgery, then I say we let it be.
- gojomo 15y agoI don't think HN has ever claimed to operate by "democratic rule". Community input is leveraged – via both the voting/flagging mechanisms, and discussions and solicitations of ideas. But rule is by YC/PG.