4 ms·
No, dang is objectively terrible at moderation. Just look at his comments history to understand how bad he is at dealing with issues. Zero effort to mediate o
by desperadovisa 4y ago
No, dang is objectively terrible at moderation. Just look at his comments history to understand how bad he is at dealing with issues. Zero effort to mediate or perspective take; dang’s first impression is the only view that matters, regardless of how wrong or misinformed.
Dang worship is just one example of how HN is no better than any other social media, and the fact that he still has a job is an indication it may be meaningfully worse.
- h2odragon 4y agoI would say he is open to "the wrong and misinformed" in the hope that they become less misinformed, at least. How are you so certain you've the correct position on anything, if you can't consider other points of view? How can you understand others actions if you will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations?
- desperadovisa 4y ago? How is dang so certain he (has) the correct position on anything, if he can't consider other points of view? How can he understand others actions if he will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations? He doesn't do any of that, he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." No discussion, no insight gathering, nothing. He's a garbage moderator. You can literally observe it in his comment history [0]. His most recent comment (at time of writing)[1] exemplifies this perfectly: > You don't have to agree with anyone's views but this style of argument is deathly to the curious conversation we want here. No, it is not. This is simply wrong, and "this style" is dismissive and rude. But that's not up for debate, as dang has decreed it so. The only reason he writes anything at all here is to explain why the person is, to him, wrong. Zero attempt whatsoever to understand an alternative perspective. Awful, terrible moderation skills. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640951
- tptacek 4y agoPart of the point of having a moderator is to give the community a mechanism to make quick determinations and to keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads (meta-stories like this being an obvious exception). If you want to debate the moderators, mail hn@ycombinator.com.
- auggy31 4y agoNothing about a moderator necessitates quickness, and what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else. In fact, quickness is a negative trait of a moderator, when their decisions are as impactful as limiting speech. And nobody said anything about debating anyone, I'm wholly uninterested in dang's perspective at this point, he's made his lack of ability in this area perfectly clear. It's also perfectly clear how little is in his toolbox to enforce his decisions however, so I suppose it's mostly a wash.
- tptacek 4y agoI disagree with basically everything you said here. But, much more importantly: if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you.
- auggy31 4y agoIt’s been a fine “hang” for me for 13 years, it’ll be fine for another 13, most likely. Also I think it's the literal definition of hubris to disagree with, "what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else" but I'm guessing you don't really care about hypocritical shit like that.
- tptacek 4y agoI think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple.
- Chris2048 4y agoI agree with this, although my memory is probably selective (as it usually is for authorities). But "the fact that he still has a job" is too far - HN should rethink it's moderation for the greater good, but HN will hardly die otherwise.