5 ms·

@dang I hope you write a book someday on everything you've learned as the main mod of HN for the past decade or however long you've been doing it. It would be

@dang I hope you write a book someday on everything you've learned as the main mod of HN for the past decade or however long you've been doing it. It would be an absolute treasure trove of how to manage public forums and social media, especially as it evolves from a small niche community to a larger one, maintaining as much of its original character as possible, and in a highly politicized, adversarial, and mis/dis-info saturated information environment. Would be a fascinating read.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Hopefully he'd include an entire chapter on why he and HN failed so spectacularly at pretty much every turn during the pandemic, especially when it came to the lab leak theory discussions.
- dang 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by failed spectacularly, but if I'm reading you right, then your comment is a good example of a reliable phenomenon: nearly everyone with strong passions on a political topic feels like HN is biased against, and even is suppressing, their position. (In one memorable case, the topic we were accused of suppressing was actually the single-most-discussed topic on HN by a long shot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962. That's how intensely these passions work: even the biggest story gets perceived as censored.) Let's look at the specific topic you mentioned. HN had plenty of discussions about the lab leak theory, starting in late 2020 and all through 2021. I've listed some below; there were others (and of course many more in 2022 and 2023). Some fell off the front page rather quickly but the biggest ones spent 15, 16, 18 hours on the front page. Everyone's memory about the pandemic has been retroactively revised by now, but as I recall it, the rehabilitation of the lab leak theory in (semi-)mainstream discourse began when Nicholas Wade published his article in the Bulletin. HN discussed that one thoroughly (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432) and there had been several major frontpage threads even before that. An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28582290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28582290 - Sept 2021 (307 comments) Scientists who signed Lancet letter about origins of Covid-19, have 2nd thoughts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27631560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27631560 - June 2021 (36 comments) The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587 - June 2021 (1062 comments) Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before Covid-19 outbreak disclosed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259953 - May 2021 (346 comments) The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 - May 2021 (537 comments) Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26750452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26750452 - April 2021 (618 comments) The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26609494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26609494 - March 2021 (209 comments) Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26540458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26540458 - March 2021 (985 comments) US raises ‘deep concerns’ over WHO report on Covid’s Wuhan origins - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125145 - Feb 2021 (632 comments) Ensuring a transparent, thorough investigation of Covid-19’s origin - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25799858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25799858 - Jan 2021 (74 comments) Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25585833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25585833 - Dec 2020 (351 comments) (There of course were many threads arguing the opposite as well - I'm just listing these because they're the relevant ones for answering the GP. If this post makes you feel like HN was too supportive of and/or too suppressive of the opposite side, please re-read the first paragraph - it seems to work the same way in all cases.)
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    Case in point :)
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - metadat 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - dmvdoug 3y ago
        > if the article is correct about you, that one thing that does enrage you is being mischaracterized or falsely accused, [then you’re probably going to get angry] Notice my statement was a conditional, premised on TFA being correct about something that does really bother him. What’s the relevance? That the previous commenter was doing that very thing TFA mentioned. As much as I agree with the point dang and Ben made in the article about the importance of patience, and kindness, there does come a point where it’s not worth engaging patiently with someone, because it’s just not worth engaging with them at all. Being worthy of engagement requires some minimal shared sense of good faith. It seemed to me that the previous commenter who decided to set his/her hair on fire and try to curb stomp dang demonstrated a manifest lack of it.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >What’s the relevance? not breaking site rules? >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." >Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. I don't know how to break it down further. >Being worthy of engagement requires some minimal shared sense of good faith. I agree, but it goes for all of us and insults don't show good faith. >It seemed to me that the previous commenter who decided to set his/her hair on fire and try to curb stomp dang demonstrated a manifest lack of it. perhaps, but it's not up to me to determine how/if Dang responds to it. I've seen the alternate route where you remove obviously wrong comments and people cry "censorship" or "thin skinned mod" so there's no truly optimal way to handle it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

Hopefully he'd include an entire chapter on why he and HN failed so spectacularly at pretty much every turn during the pandemic, especially when it came to the lab leak theory discussions.

dang 3y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by failed spectacularly, but if I'm reading you right, then your comment is a good example of a reliable phenomenon: nearly everyone with strong passions on a political topic feels like HN is biased against, and even is suppressing, their position. (In one memorable case, the topic we were accused of suppressing was actually the single-most-discussed topic on HN by a long shot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962. That's how intensely these passions work: even the biggest story gets perceived as censored.) Let's look at the specific topic you mentioned. HN had plenty of discussions about the lab leak theory, starting in late 2020 and all through 2021. I've listed some below; there were others (and of course many more in 2022 and 2023). Some fell off the front page rather quickly but the biggest ones spent 15, 16, 18 hours on the front page. Everyone's memory about the pandemic has been retroactively revised by now, but as I recall it, the rehabilitation of the lab leak theory in (semi-)mainstream discourse began when Nicholas Wade published his article in the Bulletin. HN discussed that one thoroughly (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432) and there had been several major frontpage threads even before that. An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin of Covid-19 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28582290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28582290 - Sept 2021 (307 comments) Scientists who signed Lancet letter about origins of Covid-19, have 2nd thoughts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27631560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27631560 - June 2021 (36 comments) The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27388587 - June 2021 (1062 comments) Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before Covid-19 outbreak disclosed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259953 - May 2021 (346 comments) The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27071432 - May 2021 (537 comments) Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26750452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26750452 - April 2021 (618 comments) The WHO-China search for the origins of the coronavirus - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26609494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26609494 - March 2021 (209 comments) Why the Wuhan lab leak theory shouldn't be dismissed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26540458 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26540458 - March 2021 (985 comments) US raises ‘deep concerns’ over WHO report on Covid’s Wuhan origins - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125145 - Feb 2021 (632 comments) Ensuring a transparent, thorough investigation of Covid-19’s origin - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25799858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25799858 - Jan 2021 (74 comments) Israeli startup claims Covid-19 likely originated in a lab, willing to bet on it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25585833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25585833 - Dec 2020 (351 comments) (There of course were many threads arguing the opposite as well - I'm just listing these because they're the relevant ones for answering the GP. If this post makes you feel like HN was too supportive of and/or too suppressive of the opposite side, please re-read the first paragraph - it seems to work the same way in all cases.)
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  Case in point :)
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - metadat 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dmvdoug 3y ago
      > if the article is correct about you, that one thing that does enrage you is being mischaracterized or falsely accused, [then you’re probably going to get angry] Notice my statement was a conditional, premised on TFA being correct about something that does really bother him. What’s the relevance? That the previous commenter was doing that very thing TFA mentioned. As much as I agree with the point dang and Ben made in the article about the importance of patience, and kindness, there does come a point where it’s not worth engaging patiently with someone, because it’s just not worth engaging with them at all. Being worthy of engagement requires some minimal shared sense of good faith. It seemed to me that the previous commenter who decided to set his/her hair on fire and try to curb stomp dang demonstrated a manifest lack of it.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        >What’s the relevance? not breaking site rules? >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." >Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. I don't know how to break it down further. >Being worthy of engagement requires some minimal shared sense of good faith. I agree, but it goes for all of us and insults don't show good faith. >It seemed to me that the previous commenter who decided to set his/her hair on fire and try to curb stomp dang demonstrated a manifest lack of it. perhaps, but it's not up to me to determine how/if Dang responds to it. I've seen the alternate route where you remove obviously wrong comments and people cry "censorship" or "thin skinned mod" so there's no truly optimal way to handle it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]