7 ms·
Is flagging an abuse of the moderation process?
I've noticed that some controversial postings or comments are immediately flagged. What's up with this? Is it just someone weaponizing moderation, to make sure no one can discuss something you disagree with?
- errantmind 5y agoI flag off-topic posts, and downvote all comments that don't add anything substantial to the discussion. I suggest everyone else do the same to avoid regression to the mean.
- greenyoda 5y agoMany controversial posts are about politics or crime, and these get flagged because they mostly violate HN Guidelines: | "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."[1] Controversial discussions can lead to comments that are not civil, and these are also violations of HN Guidelines. If you could provide examples of posts or comments that you think were flagged unfairly, it might lead to a more fruitful discussion. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- UIUC_06 5y agoCertainly -- the one about censorship today. Censorship is obviously a tech topic. It's also an evergreen, but that applies to lots of topics that are routinely allowed, e.g. copyrights, diversity, antitrust, or other legal topics that intersect with tech. Just yesterday there was the lengthy discussion of the atomic bomb & WW II, which is arguably less relevant than censorship.
- greenyoda 5y ago> the one about censorship today Could you provide the URL, please?
- mtmail 5y agoProbably https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30360062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30360062 Note, it's two pages and some flagged comments are on the second page.
- greenyoda 5y agoSeveral of those flagged comments are personal attacks, e.g., calling the person being replied to a sociopath. That certainly deserves to be flagged as a violation of HN Guidelines.
- UIUC_06 5y agoNo, that is about the atomic bombing, not about censorship. While "consistency" is a weak argument, as a rule: there certainly is not any Significant New Information about the atomic bombing of Japan. That happened 76+ years ago, and the fact that the US had firebombed most big cities in Japan by then has been well known since the War.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Censorship is obviously a tech topic. Censorship is not a tech topic, it's a political topic that sometime intersects with tech. And many stories about censorship fit exactly the description of off-topic stories. > Just yesterday there was the lengthy discussion of the atomic bomb & WW II, which is arguably less relevant than censorship. We could debate the merits of the specific articles but (1) that, not the merits of the broad subject matter (“censorship” and “the use of the atomic bomb in WWII”) is what is relevant, and (2) even if the particular article excluded today were agreed to be “less relevant” than one not excluded yesterday, that wouldn't make the flags on the other one necessarily abusive.
- UIUC_06 5y agoDon't you think this is splitting hairs? i.e. "it's OK when WE do it." How is censorship "a political topic that intersects with tech", when Tech companies do it without being compelled by law? Your last paragraph, especially ("We could debate the merits of the specific articles") could charitably be called "weasel-wording." Yeah, we could debate the merits -- why don't we? A reasonable addendum to the flagging process would be for the moderator to disclose: 1. Who flagged it? 2. Why did I agree? An open question would be whether to disclose when the moderator does NOT agree.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Don't you think this is splitting hairs? No. > How is censorship "a political topic that intersects with tech", when Tech companies do it without being compelled by law? Censorship isn't technology. It's social. “Tech companies are among the actors in society that do it” is...well, mostly an artifact that certain media companies are called “tech companies” rather than “media companies”, but tech companies doing social things doesn't convert those social things into tech things. > Your last paragraph, especially ("We could debate the merits of the specific articles") could charitably be called "weasel-wording." Yeah, we could debate the merits -- why don't we? Because you, in debating the exclusion, chose to debate the relative merits of broad topics rather than specific articles. The reference wasn't general, it was to the specific thread. > A reasonable addendum to the flagging process would be for the moderator to disclose: > 1. Who flagged it? > 2. Why did I agree? No, it wouldn't. One, because HN is community moderated; flags aren't necessarily reviewed at all. Two, because this adds nothing of value, just more distracting meta. If you want to challenge flags, you can email the mods. If you want to discuss an article that has been rejected by HN, you have the rest of the internet, as well as a variety of offline discussion venues. > An open question would be whether to disclose when the moderator does NOT agree. If a mod reviews flagged articles and doesn't agree with them being flagged, they aren't flagged any more (usually, there will be an explanation posted as a comment in the thread when this occurs.)
- version_five 5y agoSee the linked comment from the moderator: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30236503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30236503 There may be more thorough explanations. The gist is that topics that get rehashed over and over again with the same arguments are off-topic, and the bar is supposed to be that there is significant new information to have another post about an ongoing topic. For a discussion about e.g. something on WWII, it could still be relevant as general interest, even if it's old. That's different than yet another vi/emacs debate or whatever comes up every day.
- UIUC_06 5y agoThese two comments: > topics that get rehashed over and over again with the same arguments are off-topic, ane > something on WWII, it could still be relevant as general interest, even if it's old. I really don't see how you reconcile these into any sort of objective principle. How about this: "It's relevant if I say it is." That's perfectly fair for a private group; just say it.
- version_five 5y agoI had assumed your post was in good faith and was trying to help. It looks from your various replies like you've already made up your mind and are just trying to push some agenda here. sorry for the confusion
- codingdave 5y ago> less relevant than... Honestly, that might be where your misunderstanding of HN culture is coming from. There is no set topic for HN that something would be more or less relevant to. It certainly trends heavily to tech and startups, but is not limited to it. At the end of the day, it is community-driven.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I've noticed that some controversial postings or comments are immediately flagged. What's up with this? Is it just someone weaponizing moderation, to make sure no one can discuss something you disagree with? For the most part, the things that get flagged like this are both explicitly off-topic (they are almost always areas of major controversy covered heavily in mainstream media and articles not offering any new insights) and simultaneously things which have been shown not to produce useful discussion on HN, but instead be dominated by repetitive flamewar.
- yuuu 5y agoI got flagged for replying "No." to this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29962626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29962626). Did that really deserve to get flagged? No.
- newsbinator 5y agoI would downvote a one-word comment like "No." because this class of comment does nothing to further discussion. If it were "No, and here's why" then I'd upvote it instead.
- greenyoda 5y agoThat comment was probably deemed to be unsubstantive - you replied "no" to a lot of stuff without explaining why you were disagreeing with it. (I would have just downvoted that comment, not flagged it - I only flag comments for serious policy violations like incivility, spam, etc.)
- giantg2 5y agoThere seems to be a lot of people addressing the flagging of posts. I think most of the post I've seen flagged are flagged because they're either off topic, or they seem to contain false information or spam. I don't see many addressing the comments being flagged. Maybe because it happens less often or is less visible than for posts? At least it seems that way to me. I've seen things mostly down voted instead (posts don't have that option, so maybe that's why flagging is used more there). The main thing I have seen as comments being flagged are for nonsense/spam replies, or some sort of vulgar name calling. However, I have seen comments (including my own) that don't seem to be breaking the rules get flagged. Usually in this case it's all the comments I have posted in that thread. They later become unflagged. I assume these would be a case of someone abusing the system because they don't like my opinion. On the other side of this, I see some comments that break the rules when things get heated, and typically they aren't flagged. I usually don't flag them either since the offense is generally de minimus in my view.
- greenyoda 5y ago> or they seem to contain false information I don't agree with flagging comments just because someone thinks they're false. I'm guessing that many things that the majority of people on HN consider false at a given point in time are actually subject to serious debate by knowledgeable people. For example, statements about Covid being primarily spread by droplets, which were made by the CDC early in the pandemic and were later shown to be false. If someone would have posted a comment back then saying it's more likely that Covid was spread by aerosols (which is what the CDC says today), should it have been flagged? "Facts" in news stories are frequently proven wrong as more information becomes available. If you think something is false, it's better to cite a reference that supports your position. Perhaps someone will cite a more convincing reference that disputes it, and people can delve further.
- giantg2 5y agoI agree that seemingly false info should be refuted instead of flagged. I was just saying it seems like that's that's what gets flagged. This one seems like maybe it got flagged just for typos https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30379327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30379327 This one seems to be stating that hiding false information is censorship... and was then flagged. Sort of seems like they flagged the very thing you were talking about not flagging. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30376183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30376183
- wrp 5y agoI've been paying attention to [flagged] posts for some months now, to see what [flagged] means in actual practice. I've seen no correlation between the presence of [flagged] and the relative informativeness of the submission or volatility of the comments. So I think [flagged] is just noise.