6 ms·

So, you'd be ok with me posting an article from Breitbart.com or zerohedge.com etc.? I'm sure I can find something there that meets that loose definition. Edit

So, you'd be ok with me posting an article from Breitbart.com or zerohedge.com etc.? I'm sure I can find something there that meets that loose definition. Edit: this is a legitimate question. Why is is being downvoted?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
If it’s factual and interesting, certainly, and I can always click hide or skip past if not of interest to me. Why can’t you? Why the emotion about something so inconsequential? Not rhetorical questions, genuinely curious.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
You can post it and then see if it gets upvoted, or flagged. But once the link is up, it is considered poor form on HN to post a comment critical of the publication from which the article comes, instead of the claims in the article itself. This has been HN’s culture for many years now.
- burner111 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - hnbad 3y ago
    It's called consensus. If HN in aggregate were a person, it would be somewhere slightly to the left of a right-wing libertarian. In practice the community also includes plenty of outliers like far-left anarchists and far-right nationalists. It's very much not an echo chamber. Not that "echo chamber" is a very useful criticism or notion given that it's so poorly defined and even when you can define it, you still need to demonstrate why the thing meeting your definition is bad.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure at least one of those is on an autoban list of some sort and probably both are. HN is what it is and I can't say I disagree with that particular decision. There are certainly other forums where those types of sites are more welcome.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 3y ago
  Yes, and you put that very well. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
shilgapira 3y ago
The site rules are what they are. Besides, I'm not sure your search will be as fruitful as you imagine, mostly because reality has a well known liberal bias.
burner111 3y ago
"Factual". Ok.
dang 3y ago
Predominantly political or ideological sites tend to be banned, regardless of which flavor they favor. Major media sites and journal sites that have a mix of political/ideological content, current affairs, and the occasionally intellectually interesting article, are downweighted but not banned—precisely because we want that occasionally interesting article. Beyond that, the answer to your question is just plain "randomness". The answer to most questions.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

If it’s factual and interesting, certainly, and I can always click hide or skip past if not of interest to me. Why can’t you? Why the emotion about something so inconsequential? Not rhetorical questions, genuinely curious.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

You can post it and then see if it gets upvoted, or flagged. But once the link is up, it is considered poor form on HN to post a comment critical of the publication from which the article comes, instead of the claims in the article itself. This has been HN’s culture for many years now.

burner111 3y ago
[flagged]
- hnbad 3y ago
  It's called consensus. If HN in aggregate were a person, it would be somewhere slightly to the left of a right-wing libertarian. In practice the community also includes plenty of outliers like far-left anarchists and far-right nationalists. It's very much not an echo chamber. Not that "echo chamber" is a very useful criticism or notion given that it's so poorly defined and even when you can define it, you still need to demonstrate why the thing meeting your definition is bad.
hotpotamus 3y ago
I'm pretty sure at least one of those is on an autoban list of some sort and probably both are. HN is what it is and I can't say I disagree with that particular decision. There are certainly other forums where those types of sites are more welcome.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dang 3y ago
Yes, and you put that very well. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

shilgapira 3y ago

The site rules are what they are. Besides, I'm not sure your search will be as fruitful as you imagine, mostly because reality has a well known liberal bias.

burner111 3y ago

"Factual". Ok.

dang 3y ago

Predominantly political or ideological sites tend to be banned, regardless of which flavor they favor. Major media sites and journal sites that have a mix of political/ideological content, current affairs, and the occasionally intellectually interesting article, are downweighted but not banned—precisely because we want that occasionally interesting article. Beyond that, the answer to your question is just plain "randomness". The answer to most questions.