4 ms·

People can vouch for your submission, nobody did.

by theCrowing 4y ago

mactavish88 4y ago
How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?
- _Microft 4y ago
  Anyone who chose to enable the option "Show dead" (comments/submissions) in the settings can still see the title and vouch for it if they like.
  - mactavish88 4y ago
    This is not the default mode of browsing facilitated by HN, so the system inherently lends itself to killing contrarian perspectives long before there can be any meaningful discussion about them. To me, there’s nothing more powerful than someone posting a contrarian perspective and there being a highly upvoted, well-reasoned/cited response as to why the contrarian perspective isn’t valid. This I would prefer over having those contrarian perspectives suppressed, and I never get to see or engage with them.
- theCrowing 4y ago
  The headline of the site and your submission is also just plain wrong. Maybe there is no manmade climate emergency but there is most certainly a climate emergency. Also there is nothing scientific on the site only an open letter... it's just really bad content. You don't know how many people have seen or voted on it you are just believing that nobody has seen it. Multiple users need to flag your post before it becomes [flagged] and even more need to flag it for it to become [dead].
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > there is most certainly a climate emergency For what it's worth, I'd most strongly disagree with your use of the phrase "there is most certainly" there. There's nothing objective in science that declares what an "emergency" is. Deciding whether or not any situation is an emergency can never be the result of any science experiment. IMO, most disagreements about "science" that crop up about contentious topics aren't really science disagreements, they're subjective risk-management disagreements. Two people can look at the objective statistics about a situation and one person might see it as an emergency and one might not. They're technically both right because this is subjective in nature.
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      I utilized the term in reference to the flagged submission for the sake of simplicity and ease of comprehension for the individual in question. The term 'emergency' carries connotations and should be used with caution when describing any situation.
  - amurf 4y ago
    Only if there was a link so the rest of us knew what is being talked about.
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      Go into your profile and activate "showdead" after that click his profile and you will see his [dead] and [flagged] submissions.
  - mactavish88 4y ago
    I think this is the key problem. It seems you assume I have a particular position on climate change, as opposed to my actual intention of making people aware of this declaration. Those are very different positions. Also, my second submission was a link to a specific page on the site where I copied/pasted the title verbatim, and it was flagged immediately. This leads me to believe that my post wasn’t flagged because of an inaccurate title, but because someone really didn’t want (and didn’t want others) to see the post.
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout
      - mactavish88 4y ago
        Don’t you think it’s at least be insightful for whoever’s submitting content to understand why it was flagged? If it’s content a submitter’s come across for the first time, and they don’t see it discussed here on HN, so they post it, and it immediately gets suppressed without any explanation, how does that help the submitter? (e.g. if it’s been autoflagged, it’d be helpful to see a reason for that, and perhaps a link to past discussion the submitter might have missed). It just concerns me that this mechanism could be prematurely filtering out many valuable conversations that I’d like to be aware of.
        acdha 4y ago
        One thing to remember is that this an old debate and there’s been a ton of astroturf on behalf of the fossil fuel industry since at least the 1980s. Those operatives rely on making things sound plausible so it’s not your fault for finding it interesting - making it sound that way is quite literally these guy’s jobs - but you’ll get their accumulated bad karma as people see it, recognize the source as a bad faith actor, and don’t want to spend their time rehashing something for the dozenth time. I’d recommend searching a bit first but also avoid the sources like that who are trying to use your credibility on behalf of their clients. They will shed no tears for the cost to your reputation, which is deplorable but also predictable.

People can vouch for your submission, nobody did.

mactavish88 4y ago

How does that help if the post’s not alive for long enough for more than a handful of people to see it?

_Microft 4y ago
Anyone who chose to enable the option "Show dead" (comments/submissions) in the settings can still see the title and vouch for it if they like.
- mactavish88 4y ago
  This is not the default mode of browsing facilitated by HN, so the system inherently lends itself to killing contrarian perspectives long before there can be any meaningful discussion about them. To me, there’s nothing more powerful than someone posting a contrarian perspective and there being a highly upvoted, well-reasoned/cited response as to why the contrarian perspective isn’t valid. This I would prefer over having those contrarian perspectives suppressed, and I never get to see or engage with them.
theCrowing 4y ago
The headline of the site and your submission is also just plain wrong. Maybe there is no manmade climate emergency but there is most certainly a climate emergency. Also there is nothing scientific on the site only an open letter... it's just really bad content. You don't know how many people have seen or voted on it you are just believing that nobody has seen it. Multiple users need to flag your post before it becomes [flagged] and even more need to flag it for it to become [dead].
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > there is most certainly a climate emergency For what it's worth, I'd most strongly disagree with your use of the phrase "there is most certainly" there. There's nothing objective in science that declares what an "emergency" is. Deciding whether or not any situation is an emergency can never be the result of any science experiment. IMO, most disagreements about "science" that crop up about contentious topics aren't really science disagreements, they're subjective risk-management disagreements. Two people can look at the objective statistics about a situation and one person might see it as an emergency and one might not. They're technically both right because this is subjective in nature.
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    I utilized the term in reference to the flagged submission for the sake of simplicity and ease of comprehension for the individual in question. The term 'emergency' carries connotations and should be used with caution when describing any situation.
- amurf 4y ago
  Only if there was a link so the rest of us knew what is being talked about.
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    Go into your profile and activate "showdead" after that click his profile and you will see his [dead] and [flagged] submissions.
- mactavish88 4y ago
  I think this is the key problem. It seems you assume I have a particular position on climate change, as opposed to my actual intention of making people aware of this declaration. Those are very different positions. Also, my second submission was a link to a specific page on the site where I copied/pasted the title verbatim, and it was flagged immediately. This leads me to believe that my post wasn’t flagged because of an inaccurate title, but because someone really didn’t want (and didn’t want others) to see the post.
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout
    - mactavish88 4y ago
      Don’t you think it’s at least be insightful for whoever’s submitting content to understand why it was flagged? If it’s content a submitter’s come across for the first time, and they don’t see it discussed here on HN, so they post it, and it immediately gets suppressed without any explanation, how does that help the submitter? (e.g. if it’s been autoflagged, it’d be helpful to see a reason for that, and perhaps a link to past discussion the submitter might have missed). It just concerns me that this mechanism could be prematurely filtering out many valuable conversations that I’d like to be aware of.
      - acdha 4y ago
        One thing to remember is that this an old debate and there’s been a ton of astroturf on behalf of the fossil fuel industry since at least the 1980s. Those operatives rely on making things sound plausible so it’s not your fault for finding it interesting - making it sound that way is quite literally these guy’s jobs - but you’ll get their accumulated bad karma as people see it, recognize the source as a bad faith actor, and don’t want to spend their time rehashing something for the dozenth time. I’d recommend searching a bit first but also avoid the sources like that who are trying to use your credibility on behalf of their clients. They will shed no tears for the cost to your reputation, which is deplorable but also predictable.