3 ms·
>[...] not doing it arbitrarily. HN does quite well in this regard [...] Hard disagree on the arbitrary part. What's considered "intellectual" or "curious con
by nvy 3y ago
>[...] not doing it arbitrarily. HN does quite well in this regard [...]
Hard disagree on the arbitrary part. What's considered "intellectual" or "curious conversation" depends entirely on dang's personal preference.
For example every time a Steve Jobs thread is posted, there inevitably are two major themes:
1. People fawning over how great a leader Steve allegedly was, despite his flaws
2. People going on about how Steve was a massive douchebag, in spite of his success with Apple
Neither of those topics are interesting, novel, or intellectually gratifying but only #2 is reliably censored by dang. CEO worship is on-topic here but criticism of those CEOs is apparently "not interesting".
- Volundr 3y ago> #2 is reliably censored by dang How are you determining dang is taking action rather than user downvotes and flags? Can you provide some examples?
- pixl97 3y agoWhile I've not done it, I'd suggest building a histogram of comments/articles about Steve and see where the numbers fall. Especially in relation to comments that are deemed inflammatory. If you've ever ran a site of any size you will eventually find out there are some discussions that lead to a plethora of moderative actions because the user base (or trolls in it) cannot behave and disrupt the community. And while this may be unfair to you, a completely reasonable person capable of handling polite online discussion, the unreasonable discussions are unfair to those who do not want a flame war ever 3 post, and unfair to the administrative burden the moderators must shoulder.
- nvy 3y agoWell I have run a few sizeable communities (albeit smaller than HN) in my day and it seems to me the correct approach is "no posting about Steve Jobs at all" rather than "only Steve Jobs worship is allowed".