6 ms·

Good faith is not assumed here. Everything I post is downranked for no reason nor warning. Downranking is an expression of the presumption of bad faith.

emteycz 4y ago
I love and hate how this comment proves itself
- CyberRabbi 4y ago
  What does it prove?
rectang 4y ago
> Good faith is not assumed here. "Assume good faith" is one of the HN Guidelines[1]. I think dang walks the walk and applies that principle himself during moderation, to a rather amazing degree considering how long he's been at it and the challenges of the job. My sense is that Musk earnestly wants to do something similar at Twitter, and that he's motivated by a kindred idealism. However, assuming good faith on the part of forum participants means that outgroups end up having to tolerate a lot of unpleasantness, so long as that unpleasantness is couched civilly enough and could possibly be interpreted as well meaning. (For example, whether women are biologically predisposed to be less ambitious than men is considered fair game on HN and gets debated ad nauseam.) It's obvious that dang passionately wishes for people from all backgrounds to feel welcome, but that wish exists in tension with the lenient moderation philosophy. I've come to believe that HN's demographic skew is a direct and predictable consequence of the moderation philosophy, and that ultimately the skew is endemic and won't budge over time. I'm occasionally troubled by my own participation here because of it, as much as I enjoy and appreciate the positive aspects of the site. I expect something similar will play out at Twitter, with outgroup participation waning as Musk shapes it according to his utopian vision of what he calls "free speech". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  > outgroups end up having to tolerate a lot of unpleasantness, so long as that unpleasantness is couched civilly enough and could possibly be interpreted as well meaning Yes but isn't that a good thing for a public forum/town square, given the alternatives (censorship, politicization, etc.)? Shouldn't it be exactly the sort of place that people feel unafraid to discuss controversial subjects? If the choice is between some outgroups feeling uncomfortable with civilly-expressed criticism of themselves and their worldview, and draconian, politicized, highly subjective, moderation foisted on everyone, I know where I stand.
  - rectang 4y ago
    Well, I posit that down that path lies HN's dreadful gender ratio. I'm not OK with de facto exclusion through tolerating low-grade harassment at scale, even if the intent was benign. I think that's a much more serious consequence of "assume good faith" than gets acknowledged. And private fora are not town squares. The rules for actual town squares have to be lenient because government suppression of speech is problematic. The relevant freedom for private fora is not freedom of speech, but freedom of association.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      > I'm not OK with de facto exclusion through tolerating low-grade harassment at scale Why not? At what point is it OK to let people exclude each other? We don't all have to be friends and play together, do we? We're discriminatory, hierarchical, social animals. Some people will always be excluded. Using authority to try to solve this problem is futile and draconian. > And private fora are not town squares I agree, but the question here is whether it's worthwhile for this particular private forum to operate under the same principles of free speech. Certainly some people seem to think so.
      - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
        Well, the big issue is that completely unmoderated free speech in an environment like Twitter only stays free for the loudest, biggest two (or so) groups. The others are just shouted down and may as well go home. > the sort of place that people feel unafraid to discuss controversial subjects? > If the choice is between some outgroups feeling uncomfortable with civilly-expressed criticism of themselves So this is the key tension. Outgroups get criticism of themselves every-bloody-where. As you noted, "We're discriminatory, hierarchical, social animals". One more place doesn't make the difference. What good moderation does is provide an opening for an outgroup to issue its own civilly-expressed criticism, with a chance of being listened to instead of reflexively ridiculed and dismissed.
dang 4y ago
Your account was penalized, probably because of past involvement in flamewars. But your recent history looks fine, so I've taken the penalty off now.
- Veen 4y ago
  Why don't you inform people when their account is penalized?
  - dang 4y ago
    Mainly because the site has always worked this way and I fear unintended side effects from making significant changes. Also, it's not clear how to do it well. I do have some ideas which I'd like to try someday. Here's one: people work well with feedback loops, so telling them that they're penalized and giving them a way to fix it could be a good thing. Unfortunately, it could also just be awful. This place is always one step away from sudden decline, and when walking near a precipice one wants to step carefully.
    - Veen 4y ago
      Interesting. I would not have thought HN would take a Burkean approach to innovations in community management.
    - CyberRabbi 4y ago
      Just send a comment in reply to the comment that caused the punishment. Disable replies, make it time-limited (1 week to 1 year in duration).
    - ionwake 4y ago
      You once called me out on being overly brash once and I appreciated it, since being more careful when I post. Just my 2 cents but it seemed to work for me.
  - newbamboo 4y ago
    Don’t question Dan. He gets results. Everybody loves his moderation, and if you don’t love the moderation then you should just leave. There’s always Reddit!

emteycz 4y ago

I love and hate how this comment proves itself

CyberRabbi 4y ago
What does it prove?

rectang 4y ago

> Good faith is not assumed here. "Assume good faith" is one of the HN Guidelines[1]. I think dang walks the walk and applies that principle himself during moderation, to a rather amazing degree considering how long he's been at it and the challenges of the job. My sense is that Musk earnestly wants to do something similar at Twitter, and that he's motivated by a kindred idealism. However, assuming good faith on the part of forum participants means that outgroups end up having to tolerate a lot of unpleasantness, so long as that unpleasantness is couched civilly enough and could possibly be interpreted as well meaning. (For example, whether women are biologically predisposed to be less ambitious than men is considered fair game on HN and gets debated ad nauseam.) It's obvious that dang passionately wishes for people from all backgrounds to feel welcome, but that wish exists in tension with the lenient moderation philosophy. I've come to believe that HN's demographic skew is a direct and predictable consequence of the moderation philosophy, and that ultimately the skew is endemic and won't budge over time. I'm occasionally troubled by my own participation here because of it, as much as I enjoy and appreciate the positive aspects of the site. I expect something similar will play out at Twitter, with outgroup participation waning as Musk shapes it according to his utopian vision of what he calls "free speech". [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

thegrimmest 4y ago
> outgroups end up having to tolerate a lot of unpleasantness, so long as that unpleasantness is couched civilly enough and could possibly be interpreted as well meaning Yes but isn't that a good thing for a public forum/town square, given the alternatives (censorship, politicization, etc.)? Shouldn't it be exactly the sort of place that people feel unafraid to discuss controversial subjects? If the choice is between some outgroups feeling uncomfortable with civilly-expressed criticism of themselves and their worldview, and draconian, politicized, highly subjective, moderation foisted on everyone, I know where I stand.
- rectang 4y ago
  Well, I posit that down that path lies HN's dreadful gender ratio. I'm not OK with de facto exclusion through tolerating low-grade harassment at scale, even if the intent was benign. I think that's a much more serious consequence of "assume good faith" than gets acknowledged. And private fora are not town squares. The rules for actual town squares have to be lenient because government suppression of speech is problematic. The relevant freedom for private fora is not freedom of speech, but freedom of association.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    > I'm not OK with de facto exclusion through tolerating low-grade harassment at scale Why not? At what point is it OK to let people exclude each other? We don't all have to be friends and play together, do we? We're discriminatory, hierarchical, social animals. Some people will always be excluded. Using authority to try to solve this problem is futile and draconian. > And private fora are not town squares I agree, but the question here is whether it's worthwhile for this particular private forum to operate under the same principles of free speech. Certainly some people seem to think so.
    - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
      Well, the big issue is that completely unmoderated free speech in an environment like Twitter only stays free for the loudest, biggest two (or so) groups. The others are just shouted down and may as well go home. > the sort of place that people feel unafraid to discuss controversial subjects? > If the choice is between some outgroups feeling uncomfortable with civilly-expressed criticism of themselves So this is the key tension. Outgroups get criticism of themselves every-bloody-where. As you noted, "We're discriminatory, hierarchical, social animals". One more place doesn't make the difference. What good moderation does is provide an opening for an outgroup to issue its own civilly-expressed criticism, with a chance of being listened to instead of reflexively ridiculed and dismissed.

dang 4y ago

Your account was penalized, probably because of past involvement in flamewars. But your recent history looks fine, so I've taken the penalty off now.

Veen 4y ago
Why don't you inform people when their account is penalized?
- dang 4y ago
  Mainly because the site has always worked this way and I fear unintended side effects from making significant changes. Also, it's not clear how to do it well. I do have some ideas which I'd like to try someday. Here's one: people work well with feedback loops, so telling them that they're penalized and giving them a way to fix it could be a good thing. Unfortunately, it could also just be awful. This place is always one step away from sudden decline, and when walking near a precipice one wants to step carefully.
  - Veen 4y ago
    Interesting. I would not have thought HN would take a Burkean approach to innovations in community management.
  - CyberRabbi 4y ago
    Just send a comment in reply to the comment that caused the punishment. Disable replies, make it time-limited (1 week to 1 year in duration).
  - ionwake 4y ago
    You once called me out on being overly brash once and I appreciated it, since being more careful when I post. Just my 2 cents but it seemed to work for me.
- newbamboo 4y ago
  Don’t question Dan. He gets results. Everybody loves his moderation, and if you don’t love the moderation then you should just leave. There’s always Reddit!