4 ms·

Certainly -- 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 routinel

Certainly -- 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 ago
  Probably 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 ago
    Several 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 ago
    No, 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 ago
  Don'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.)
    - UIUC_06 5y ago
version_five 5y ago
See 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 ago
  These 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 ago
    I 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.

greenyoda 5y ago

> the one about censorship today Could you provide the URL, please?

mtmail 5y ago
Probably 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 ago
  Several 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 ago
  No, 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 ago
Don'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.)
  - UIUC_06 5y ago

version_five 5y ago

See 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 ago
These 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 ago
  I 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.