3 ms·

>Problem is this: science is not democratic. The problem with this; who gets to decide what's right? The institution of science has had this issue before, and

by tsol 4y ago

>Problem is this: science is not democratic. The problem with this; who gets to decide what's right? The institution of science has had this issue before, and decided no one group is capable of always doing that. Hence it is decided using consensus and the scientific method. It's easy to say 'only allow professionals' but there ARE professionals with controversial opinions that will still get mobbed.

otikik 4y ago
As I mentioned it is far from perfect. Scientists are still human. It is still the best system we have, and it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”. If you want that, try MTV.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”. Letting users discover when their content is removed is not "letting everyone in". You can have both moderation and transparency. They're not mutually exclusive, and many people will alter their behavior in a group after being told their content was removed. They're less likely to change when they're not told. For those who persist, consider what Jonathan Rauch says about speaking in a public forum, > The person you're talking to isn't the person you're directly talking to. You're not going to be able to persuade that hardcore LGBT left-wing activist that your point of view is correct. The person you're talking to is [the one overhearing your conversation]... They're seeing you sound reasonable, and the other person sound dogmatic and censorious... [1] In other words, don't compromise your values to deal with a minority of very persistent people with whom most people don't find alignment anyway. When you do compromise your values, that person will shift to attack you on the basis of censorship, and you've just given them the very platform they needed to gain followers. At that point you're no longer the open discussion forum to whatever degree you claimed. So you can't convince everyone of your viewpoint. So what? Leave it at that. Accepting that someone may not agree with you right away, or possibly ever, is the grown up thing to do. After all, in some cases it may be your mind that gets changed. To the extent you don't do this, you are your own worst enemy. And when you can see it through, you will have become your best advocate. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s
pixl97 4y ago
Can we agree that hundreds of meme posts and hundreds of "That's what she said" posts are not helpful? You see that behavior on tons of popular subreddits that are less moderated. That the conversation looks like a copy of most of the other threads in the sub because of the low quality recycled posts. If we did that on HN our posts would be flagged here too. We do need to separate out how much 'garbage' gets filtered from the ideas that are controversial opinions.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > Can we agree that hundreds of meme posts and hundreds of "That's what she said" posts are not helpful? The dispute here is secret moderation, not what content gets removed. If moderation were transparent, users would also be part of the decision making process. Currently they are not part of the process because their removed content is shown to them as if it is publicly possible.

by tsol 4y ago

otikik 4y ago

As I mentioned it is far from perfect. Scientists are still human. It is still the best system we have, and it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”. If you want that, try MTV.

rhaksw 4y ago
> it is definitely better than “opening the gates and letting everyone in”. Letting users discover when their content is removed is not "letting everyone in". You can have both moderation and transparency. They're not mutually exclusive, and many people will alter their behavior in a group after being told their content was removed. They're less likely to change when they're not told. For those who persist, consider what Jonathan Rauch says about speaking in a public forum, > The person you're talking to isn't the person you're directly talking to. You're not going to be able to persuade that hardcore LGBT left-wing activist that your point of view is correct. The person you're talking to is [the one overhearing your conversation]... They're seeing you sound reasonable, and the other person sound dogmatic and censorious... [1] In other words, don't compromise your values to deal with a minority of very persistent people with whom most people don't find alignment anyway. When you do compromise your values, that person will shift to attack you on the basis of censorship, and you've just given them the very platform they needed to gain followers. At that point you're no longer the open discussion forum to whatever degree you claimed. So you can't convince everyone of your viewpoint. So what? Leave it at that. Accepting that someone may not agree with you right away, or possibly ever, is the grown up thing to do. After all, in some cases it may be your mind that gets changed. To the extent you don't do this, you are your own worst enemy. And when you can see it through, you will have become your best advocate. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s

pixl97 4y ago

Can we agree that hundreds of meme posts and hundreds of "That's what she said" posts are not helpful? You see that behavior on tons of popular subreddits that are less moderated. That the conversation looks like a copy of most of the other threads in the sub because of the low quality recycled posts. If we did that on HN our posts would be flagged here too. We do need to separate out how much 'garbage' gets filtered from the ideas that are controversial opinions.

rhaksw 4y ago
> Can we agree that hundreds of meme posts and hundreds of "That's what she said" posts are not helpful? The dispute here is secret moderation, not what content gets removed. If moderation were transparent, users would also be part of the decision making process. Currently they are not part of the process because their removed content is shown to them as if it is publicly possible.