4 ms·

It's one thing to demand not calling ordinary people names, but Feinstein isn't an ordinary person. If one can't call a person in power names, that implies man

It's one thing to demand not calling ordinary people names, but Feinstein isn't an ordinary person. If one can't call a person in power names, that implies many things you probably didn't want to imply.

yieldcrv 4y ago
That he’s not a free speech absolutist? big deal, nobody is no platform is, thats the expected default behavior everywhere you go and there is zero reason why HN would be different. I’m not even going to go into how this is a private platform with clearly stated rules for you because it doesn't even matter, just take the L
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  dang is welcome to enforce rules as he pleases, it's his platform (or rather publishing space). But restricting speech concerning those in power imply things that I would presume he would not want to imply.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    implies what? I took a guess but you keep talking in riddles, use your words
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 4y ago
        None of those are implied. What I posted was bog-standard HN moderation. You could replace the name Feinstein with any other, or her party or politics with any other, and I'd have posted the same moderation response. I'm not sure what you're finding hard to understand about HN having a guideline that asks people not to call names or do flamewar.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        I don't have any complications with HN guidelines, but I do with the way they are enforced. I see plenty of posts that call people, both ordinary and public figures, "names" that go unflagged and unmoderated. I see plenty of meme posts that don't get flagged and moderated. I see political threads and subthreads all the time despite politics strictly being off-limits per guidelines. In fairness to you, you've never claimed HN is a free speech platform so I am perfectly fine with you publishing submitted threads and comments as you see fit. I'd even die, figuratively speaking, to protect your right to those freedoms of expression and association, and I would hope you will reciprocate the sentiment as a fellow American. However, the reality is the HN guidelines are not enforced equally, fairly, and objectively, so you will have to excuse me for rolling my eyes at all the inevitable noise that will create (including mine). We can get away with calling Trump, Gates, and Jobs among others names but not Feinstein? Please. I realize HN is short on manpower, but that is not an excuse.
        borski 4y ago
        This very thread is a precise example of why moderation is hard and necessary. I read the whole thing and it has zero interesting substance, and does not do anything to satisfy curiosity, which is largely the point of HN. I’d recommend reading the guidelines one more time.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        The very fact this thread (it's political in nature) wasn't expunged at first sight is indication that moderation is dealt out unequally, unfairly, and unobjectively. I reiterate: I am fine with dang enforcing his beliefs upon this publication as it is his property and he never so much as implied to support free speech. From the outset we deliberate and have our thoughts published here at his pleasure. However, seeing as he has set out rules ("guidelines") he has an obligation to enforce them equally, fairly, and objectively. I don't necessarily have a problem with him prohibiting insults, if that's his policy here then it is what it is because this is his publication space. But if he is defending Feinstein or any other particular individual specifically, that I do have a problem with and if such is made clear I will take my leave because I have no interest in enabling such matters.
- HopenHeyHi 4y ago
  This attitude isn't a good look for the owners of this private platform and I don't think they'd agree with your perspective nor do most of the users. Food for thought.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    The users dont matter and will do the same thing on their own platforms once there are any stakeholders The owner’s actions speak louder than their words and the moderations actions in their properties are not a mystery or unexpected
    - HopenHeyHi 4y ago
      My my, the users don't matter. Who does? Maybe only yieldcrv matters? The owners have left this platform and mostly hang out on twitter. > the moderations actions in their properties are not a mystery or unexpected Something we could agree on until relatively recently, there seems to be a notable change in direction and a growing dissatisfaction online and offline amongst actual entrepreneurs (the sort that apply to ycombinator) and investors. If those users don't matter and start leaving what is this site actually for my friend?
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Sure you can namecall, but it's childish and ugly. Please don't do it around anyone you want to continue to have a reasonable conversation with.
dang 4y ago
I covered that point (or thought I did!) with the second sentence in my GP comment. The issue is what it does to us as a community. That's significant. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Comment in question concerned what the poster personally experienced, which clearly wasn't a pleasant/positive one. If you want to demand he prove he met Feinstein in person, well, that's certainly within your power as moderator and owner of this space. But as far as what he owes to the community, I think he doesn't have to explain anything of his experience interacting with someone. He interacted with Feinstein, his takeaway was she is a "senile moron". I for one won't fault him for that, but you obviously have a different take and that's fine. As an aside, the fact you flagged my comment as well implies very dark things. It is perhaps better I take my leave because I have no interest in enabling such matters. Though it does sadden me, in a deeply ironic way, that an American entity subscribes to such things. People have died to protect the right to speak ill of those in power.
  - borski 4y ago
    Here, I rewrote the parent comment with a set of substantive points rather than namecalling. Same message, but much more constructive in nature. “I met her in 2003, along with her aides at a party I was invited to (in a fluke) in Palm Springs. She was ignorant of tech and science then, and now she's the same but more senile (as happens with age). Her aides, who ended up hanging out with me all weekend, were a perfect illustration of the classic trope of donor class kids who weren't that smart but got into ivy League schools by legacy admissions. Zero intellectual curiosity, super aware of social status, everything they said seemed preplanned and inauthentic.... Just left me feeling gross.” I don’t think ‘dang would have had an issue with that wording. It doesn’t take much to be substantive rather than resorting to ad hominems; the latter is just easier.
  - dang 4y ago
    Users flagged your comment. I didn't touch it.

yieldcrv 4y ago

That he’s not a free speech absolutist? big deal, nobody is no platform is, thats the expected default behavior everywhere you go and there is zero reason why HN would be different. I’m not even going to go into how this is a private platform with clearly stated rules for you because it doesn't even matter, just take the L

Dalewyn 4y ago
dang is welcome to enforce rules as he pleases, it's his platform (or rather publishing space). But restricting speech concerning those in power imply things that I would presume he would not want to imply.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  implies what? I took a guess but you keep talking in riddles, use your words
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 4y ago
      None of those are implied. What I posted was bog-standard HN moderation. You could replace the name Feinstein with any other, or her party or politics with any other, and I'd have posted the same moderation response. I'm not sure what you're finding hard to understand about HN having a guideline that asks people not to call names or do flamewar.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        I don't have any complications with HN guidelines, but I do with the way they are enforced. I see plenty of posts that call people, both ordinary and public figures, "names" that go unflagged and unmoderated. I see plenty of meme posts that don't get flagged and moderated. I see political threads and subthreads all the time despite politics strictly being off-limits per guidelines. In fairness to you, you've never claimed HN is a free speech platform so I am perfectly fine with you publishing submitted threads and comments as you see fit. I'd even die, figuratively speaking, to protect your right to those freedoms of expression and association, and I would hope you will reciprocate the sentiment as a fellow American. However, the reality is the HN guidelines are not enforced equally, fairly, and objectively, so you will have to excuse me for rolling my eyes at all the inevitable noise that will create (including mine). We can get away with calling Trump, Gates, and Jobs among others names but not Feinstein? Please. I realize HN is short on manpower, but that is not an excuse.
        borski 4y ago
        This very thread is a precise example of why moderation is hard and necessary. I read the whole thing and it has zero interesting substance, and does not do anything to satisfy curiosity, which is largely the point of HN. I’d recommend reading the guidelines one more time.
        Dalewyn 4y ago
        The very fact this thread (it's political in nature) wasn't expunged at first sight is indication that moderation is dealt out unequally, unfairly, and unobjectively. I reiterate: I am fine with dang enforcing his beliefs upon this publication as it is his property and he never so much as implied to support free speech. From the outset we deliberate and have our thoughts published here at his pleasure. However, seeing as he has set out rules ("guidelines") he has an obligation to enforce them equally, fairly, and objectively. I don't necessarily have a problem with him prohibiting insults, if that's his policy here then it is what it is because this is his publication space. But if he is defending Feinstein or any other particular individual specifically, that I do have a problem with and if such is made clear I will take my leave because I have no interest in enabling such matters.
HopenHeyHi 4y ago
This attitude isn't a good look for the owners of this private platform and I don't think they'd agree with your perspective nor do most of the users. Food for thought.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  The users dont matter and will do the same thing on their own platforms once there are any stakeholders The owner’s actions speak louder than their words and the moderations actions in their properties are not a mystery or unexpected
  - HopenHeyHi 4y ago
    My my, the users don't matter. Who does? Maybe only yieldcrv matters? The owners have left this platform and mostly hang out on twitter. > the moderations actions in their properties are not a mystery or unexpected Something we could agree on until relatively recently, there seems to be a notable change in direction and a growing dissatisfaction online and offline amongst actual entrepreneurs (the sort that apply to ycombinator) and investors. If those users don't matter and start leaving what is this site actually for my friend?

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Sure you can namecall, but it's childish and ugly. Please don't do it around anyone you want to continue to have a reasonable conversation with.

dang 4y ago

I covered that point (or thought I did!) with the second sentence in my GP comment. The issue is what it does to us as a community. That's significant. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Dalewyn 4y ago
Comment in question concerned what the poster personally experienced, which clearly wasn't a pleasant/positive one. If you want to demand he prove he met Feinstein in person, well, that's certainly within your power as moderator and owner of this space. But as far as what he owes to the community, I think he doesn't have to explain anything of his experience interacting with someone. He interacted with Feinstein, his takeaway was she is a "senile moron". I for one won't fault him for that, but you obviously have a different take and that's fine. As an aside, the fact you flagged my comment as well implies very dark things. It is perhaps better I take my leave because I have no interest in enabling such matters. Though it does sadden me, in a deeply ironic way, that an American entity subscribes to such things. People have died to protect the right to speak ill of those in power.
- borski 4y ago
  Here, I rewrote the parent comment with a set of substantive points rather than namecalling. Same message, but much more constructive in nature. “I met her in 2003, along with her aides at a party I was invited to (in a fluke) in Palm Springs. She was ignorant of tech and science then, and now she's the same but more senile (as happens with age). Her aides, who ended up hanging out with me all weekend, were a perfect illustration of the classic trope of donor class kids who weren't that smart but got into ivy League schools by legacy admissions. Zero intellectual curiosity, super aware of social status, everything they said seemed preplanned and inauthentic.... Just left me feeling gross.” I don’t think ‘dang would have had an issue with that wording. It doesn’t take much to be substantive rather than resorting to ad hominems; the latter is just easier.
- dang 4y ago
  Users flagged your comment. I didn't touch it.