3 ms·

I think it'll just be a retread of the same discussions and talking points as last time. There's never "cooler heads". If there were, you'd see when articles do

by bena 4y ago

I think it'll just be a retread of the same discussions and talking points as last time. There's never "cooler heads". If there were, you'd see when articles do get recycled and someone posts all of the previous discussions. Or when similar topics get brought up. This is not the first time that "fake news" has been brought up here. And yet, every time, the same voices can be counted on to make the exact same points despite all evidence saying they are wrong. There are topics that probably should just be not allowed on HN due to how they bring down the overall level of discourse. But you know that would be the bogeyman of mean ol censorship. But you know, the comment threshold, flagging, shadow-banning, etc are somehow not. If you're going to moderate, moderate.

mistermann 4y ago
I think we're not completely on the same page: I'm not saying we should repost the article itself, but rather repost discussions threads about articles (perhaps with names anonymized and the non-anonomized original post delisted temporarily to prevent cheating), and the task at hand being: nitpick the silliness of our former selves. > And yet, every time, the same voices can be counted on to make the exact same points despite all evidence saying they are wrong. Indeed, and many of them are surprisingly silly considering the intelligence on this site. Certain topics can throw very powerful minds into disarray and delusion, and this phenomenon plausibly can cause great harm, why not study it!!?? Do we really care about the wellbeing of humanity, or are we just here to concern troll? > There are topics that probably should just be not allowed on HN due to how they bring down the overall level of discourse. But you know that would be the bogeyman of mean ol censorship. But you know, the comment threshold, flagging, shadow-banning, etc are somehow not. If you're going to moderate, moderate. Alternatively, this community (and its leadership) could be a little daring and see if it can walk its impressive talk. From prior conversations I'm pretty confident leadership "wouldn't be interested" in this sort of thing, but it would be fun to see a grassroots effort at it, and even more fun if it got shut down for "reasons".
- bena 4y ago
  People do post the discussion threads. Although I doubt a lot of people go back to read them. Some, of course, but not all. I do kind of like the idea of posting the discussion thread as the item of discussion itself. Anonymization is probably needed although personally, anything I wrote 2 to 3 months ago always feels like it was written by someone else. I've always liked Slashdot's attempt at moderation. Moderators chosen at random with a limited set of options/votes to give to posts. There's very little you can do to game that system.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > anything I wrote 2 to 3 months ago always feels like it was written by someone else. It's a bizarre phenomenon eh? Have you experimented with psychedelics at all? To me, there's no better vantage point on the theatrical production we're all unwittingly involved in than that. Scaling it up into something particularly useful seems like it might be a bit problematic though.

by bena 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

I think we're not completely on the same page: I'm not saying we should repost the article itself, but rather repost discussions threads about articles (perhaps with names anonymized and the non-anonomized original post delisted temporarily to prevent cheating), and the task at hand being: nitpick the silliness of our former selves. > And yet, every time, the same voices can be counted on to make the exact same points despite all evidence saying they are wrong. Indeed, and many of them are surprisingly silly considering the intelligence on this site. Certain topics can throw very powerful minds into disarray and delusion, and this phenomenon plausibly can cause great harm, why not study it!!?? Do we really care about the wellbeing of humanity, or are we just here to concern troll? > There are topics that probably should just be not allowed on HN due to how they bring down the overall level of discourse. But you know that would be the bogeyman of mean ol censorship. But you know, the comment threshold, flagging, shadow-banning, etc are somehow not. If you're going to moderate, moderate. Alternatively, this community (and its leadership) could be a little daring and see if it can walk its impressive talk. From prior conversations I'm pretty confident leadership "wouldn't be interested" in this sort of thing, but it would be fun to see a grassroots effort at it, and even more fun if it got shut down for "reasons".

bena 4y ago
People do post the discussion threads. Although I doubt a lot of people go back to read them. Some, of course, but not all. I do kind of like the idea of posting the discussion thread as the item of discussion itself. Anonymization is probably needed although personally, anything I wrote 2 to 3 months ago always feels like it was written by someone else. I've always liked Slashdot's attempt at moderation. Moderators chosen at random with a limited set of options/votes to give to posts. There's very little you can do to game that system.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > anything I wrote 2 to 3 months ago always feels like it was written by someone else. It's a bizarre phenomenon eh? Have you experimented with psychedelics at all? To me, there's no better vantage point on the theatrical production we're all unwittingly involved in than that. Scaling it up into something particularly useful seems like it might be a bit problematic though.