5 ms·

Good. Hacker News isn't an open-ended political site for people to post weird propaganda.

by chasing 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mutant_glofish 3y ago
How's archive.is "weird propaganda"?
- chasing 3y ago
  Did you read the rest of your own post?
- dang 3y ago
  It isn't banned in comments - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22archive.is%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22archive.ph%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., etc. We probably banned it for submissions because we want original sources at the top level.
  - mutant_glofish 3y ago
    And how was the decision made to ban Federalist, but not say Guardian or The Daily Beast? Do you have any process in place to ensure that your political biases don't influence the list, or you don't care about that?
    - cornel_io 3y ago
      I'm guessing it's reactive, and Federalist links tended to be garbage often enough to convince someone they should hit the ban button, whereas the others didn't rise up with trash often enough to matter?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - chasing 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - mutant_glofish 3y ago
        > It's under no obligation to be politically balanced. And obviously, I'm under no obligation to not voice my concern about that.
        adamckay 3y ago
        > And obviously, I'm under no obligation to not voice my concern about that. Except... You are... The guidelines [1] of the site outline that most discussion of politics is off-topic as it most often doesn't gratify one's intellectual curiosity. It's rather explicit, too: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.". 1- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - jesterson 3y ago
        > no obligation to promote right-wing propaganda and hate Your poor unintentional choice of words (hopefully) makes it sound like left-wing propaganda and hate is something worthy of being promoted. Do hope you don't mean it this way.
      - xNeil 3y ago
        I came to HN because it seemed to be a place of free dialogue. > It's certainly under no obligation to promote right-wing propaganda and hate. It's certainly under no obligation to promote any propaganda or hate. That's what makes the site great. The HN crowd is not your average layman - it's largely well read and educated people. Why not let them decide what is propaganda and what's not (as opposed to some arbitrary authority deciding this)?
        danparsonson 3y ago
        > The HN crowd is not your average layman - it's largely well read and educated people. Why not let them decide what is propaganda and what's not (as opposed to some arbitrary authority deciding this)? That is at best a very naïve take. This is a public forum, not some secret society of like-minded intelligentsia.
    - afavour 3y ago
      Why do you assume the Federalist is blocked because of its political leanings?
    - dang 3y ago
      We don't have "processes" at HN. The idea makes my skin crawl. Plenty of both left- and right-wing sites are banned and/or downweighted on HN. When a site is primarily about political battle, we either ban it or downweight it. Which of the two we choose depends on how likely the site is to produce the occasional interesting article (in HN's sense of the word "interesting"). That's why The Federalist and World Workers Daily (or whatever it's called) are banned, while National Review and Jacobin are merely downweighted. Both the Guardian and Daily Beast are downweighted, btw, as are most major media sites. If you or anyone thinks that HN moderation is unfairly ideologically biased, I'm open to the critique, but you guys need to first look at the site as it actually is, and not just look at your own pre-existing perceptions. Every data point becomes a Convincing Proof when you do the latter. People think that when their team gets moderated, the mods are OMG obviously on the other side. The Other Side feels exactly the same way. This "they're against me" perception is the most reliable phenomenon I've observed on HN. Leftists feel it, rightists feel it, Go programmers feel it, even Rust programmers feel it. Literally the very-most-popular topic on HN at any moment is perceived by someone as Viciously Suppressed because of this perception. Stop and think about that—it's kind of amazing. Someone should write a PhD thesis.
      - rhaksw 3y ago
        > you guys need to first look at the site as it actually is, and not just look at your own pre-existing perceptions. How can one see the site "as it actually is" when the decisions are kept secret from submitters? > People think that when their team gets moderated, the mods are OMG obviously on the other side. The Other Side feels exactly the same way. This will always be a thing. But it's also true that society is more divided now than it was 20 years ago. We find ourselves unable to communicate across ideological divides and we resort to shouting or in some cases violence. Some effort must be made to improve communication, and transparency for content authors is a minimal step towards that.
      - dontupvoteme 3y ago
        Would you be open to publishing the down-weighting values if they're based on politics not spam? This is the murkiest part to me since it's not just a binary flag.
  - mutant_glofish 3y ago
    > We probably banned it for submissions because we want original sources at the top level. Then why web.archive.org isn't also banned? [1] And what about things which aren't available from the original source anymore? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130420
    - gouggoug 3y ago
      > Then why web.archive.org isn't also banned? Because web.archive.org is generally used for... ... things which aren't available from the original source anymore. While archive.is is generally used to bypass paywalls. These 2 websites have 2 very distinct missions and use-cases.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        Whilst I agree with your characterisation as regards usage on HN, I will note that Archive Today actually is a quite useful archival tool, and often works on sites which the Internet Archive behaves poorly on. I'd run across an instance of this when the Diaspora* pod I was on (the original public node, as it happens) ceased operations. I found myself wanting to archive my own posts, and was caught in something of a dilemma: - The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has a highly-scriptable method for submitting sites, in the form of a URL (see below). Once you have a list of pages you want to archive, you can chunk through those using your scripting tool of choice (for me, bash, and curl or wget typically). But it doesn't capture the comments on Diaspora* discussions.... E.g., <https://web.archive.org/web/20220111031247/https://joindiaspora.com/posts/0308dae037a9013a502f002590d8e506 https://web.archive.org/web/20220111031247/https://joindiasp...> - Archive.Today does not have a mass-submission tool, and somewhat aggressively imposes CAPTCHAs at times. So the remaining option is manual submissions, though those can be run off a pre-generated list of URLs which somewhat streamlines the process. And it does capture the comments. E.g., <https://archive.is/9t61g https://archive.is/9t61g> So, if you are looking to archive material, Archive Today is useful, if somewhat tedious at bulk. (Which is probably why the Internet Archive is the far more comprehensive Web archive.)
    - dang 3y ago

Good. Hacker News isn't an open-ended political site for people to post weird propaganda.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mutant_glofish 3y ago

How's archive.is "weird propaganda"?

chasing 3y ago
Did you read the rest of your own post?
dang 3y ago
It isn't banned in comments - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22archive.is%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22archive.ph%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., etc. We probably banned it for submissions because we want original sources at the top level.
- mutant_glofish 3y ago
  And how was the decision made to ban Federalist, but not say Guardian or The Daily Beast? Do you have any process in place to ensure that your political biases don't influence the list, or you don't care about that?
  - cornel_io 3y ago
    I'm guessing it's reactive, and Federalist links tended to be garbage often enough to convince someone they should hit the ban button, whereas the others didn't rise up with trash often enough to matter?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chasing 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mutant_glofish 3y ago
      > It's under no obligation to be politically balanced. And obviously, I'm under no obligation to not voice my concern about that.
      - adamckay 3y ago
        > And obviously, I'm under no obligation to not voice my concern about that. Except... You are... The guidelines [1] of the site outline that most discussion of politics is off-topic as it most often doesn't gratify one's intellectual curiosity. It's rather explicit, too: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.". 1- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - jesterson 3y ago
      > no obligation to promote right-wing propaganda and hate Your poor unintentional choice of words (hopefully) makes it sound like left-wing propaganda and hate is something worthy of being promoted. Do hope you don't mean it this way.
    - xNeil 3y ago
      I came to HN because it seemed to be a place of free dialogue. > It's certainly under no obligation to promote right-wing propaganda and hate. It's certainly under no obligation to promote any propaganda or hate. That's what makes the site great. The HN crowd is not your average layman - it's largely well read and educated people. Why not let them decide what is propaganda and what's not (as opposed to some arbitrary authority deciding this)?
      - danparsonson 3y ago
        > The HN crowd is not your average layman - it's largely well read and educated people. Why not let them decide what is propaganda and what's not (as opposed to some arbitrary authority deciding this)? That is at best a very naïve take. This is a public forum, not some secret society of like-minded intelligentsia.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Why do you assume the Federalist is blocked because of its political leanings?
  - dang 3y ago
    We don't have "processes" at HN. The idea makes my skin crawl. Plenty of both left- and right-wing sites are banned and/or downweighted on HN. When a site is primarily about political battle, we either ban it or downweight it. Which of the two we choose depends on how likely the site is to produce the occasional interesting article (in HN's sense of the word "interesting"). That's why The Federalist and World Workers Daily (or whatever it's called) are banned, while National Review and Jacobin are merely downweighted. Both the Guardian and Daily Beast are downweighted, btw, as are most major media sites. If you or anyone thinks that HN moderation is unfairly ideologically biased, I'm open to the critique, but you guys need to first look at the site as it actually is, and not just look at your own pre-existing perceptions. Every data point becomes a Convincing Proof when you do the latter. People think that when their team gets moderated, the mods are OMG obviously on the other side. The Other Side feels exactly the same way. This "they're against me" perception is the most reliable phenomenon I've observed on HN. Leftists feel it, rightists feel it, Go programmers feel it, even Rust programmers feel it. Literally the very-most-popular topic on HN at any moment is perceived by someone as Viciously Suppressed because of this perception. Stop and think about that—it's kind of amazing. Someone should write a PhD thesis.
    - rhaksw 3y ago
      > you guys need to first look at the site as it actually is, and not just look at your own pre-existing perceptions. How can one see the site "as it actually is" when the decisions are kept secret from submitters? > People think that when their team gets moderated, the mods are OMG obviously on the other side. The Other Side feels exactly the same way. This will always be a thing. But it's also true that society is more divided now than it was 20 years ago. We find ourselves unable to communicate across ideological divides and we resort to shouting or in some cases violence. Some effort must be made to improve communication, and transparency for content authors is a minimal step towards that.
    - dontupvoteme 3y ago
      Would you be open to publishing the down-weighting values if they're based on politics not spam? This is the murkiest part to me since it's not just a binary flag.
- mutant_glofish 3y ago
  > We probably banned it for submissions because we want original sources at the top level. Then why web.archive.org isn't also banned? [1] And what about things which aren't available from the original source anymore? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130420
  - gouggoug 3y ago
    > Then why web.archive.org isn't also banned? Because web.archive.org is generally used for... ... things which aren't available from the original source anymore. While archive.is is generally used to bypass paywalls. These 2 websites have 2 very distinct missions and use-cases.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Whilst I agree with your characterisation as regards usage on HN, I will note that Archive Today actually is a quite useful archival tool, and often works on sites which the Internet Archive behaves poorly on. I'd run across an instance of this when the Diaspora* pod I was on (the original public node, as it happens) ceased operations. I found myself wanting to archive my own posts, and was caught in something of a dilemma: - The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine has a highly-scriptable method for submitting sites, in the form of a URL (see below). Once you have a list of pages you want to archive, you can chunk through those using your scripting tool of choice (for me, bash, and curl or wget typically). But it doesn't capture the comments on Diaspora* discussions.... E.g., <https://web.archive.org/web/20220111031247/https://joindiaspora.com/posts/0308dae037a9013a502f002590d8e506 https://web.archive.org/web/20220111031247/https://joindiasp...> - Archive.Today does not have a mass-submission tool, and somewhat aggressively imposes CAPTCHAs at times. So the remaining option is manual submissions, though those can be run off a pre-generated list of URLs which somewhat streamlines the process. And it does capture the comments. E.g., <https://archive.is/9t61g https://archive.is/9t61g> So, if you are looking to archive material, Archive Today is useful, if somewhat tedious at bulk. (Which is probably why the Internet Archive is the far more comprehensive Web archive.)
  - dang 3y ago