6 ms·

I wish politics articles wouldn't make it to the top page of Hacker News. There's already enough political discussion in a million other places.

by ken47 3y ago

dang 3y ago
Yes, and we won't let HN turn into a current affairs site, but this site has always had a certain amount of political content, and that's why this particular thread is happening. For more information, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 and the links there.
- theultdev 3y ago
  Is there a reason why Oct 7th (the massacre that started this escalation) was not discussed? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1696896000&dateRange=custom&dateStart=1696550400&page=0&prefix=false&query=&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1696896000&dateRange=custom&...
  - vcryan 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - theultdev 3y ago
      I was specifically asking about Oct 7th coverage and the coverage this event. While I don't agree with your recount of history, it's off-topic to my question to @dang In fact, the presence and tone of comments like yours vs the lacking and flagging of pro-Israel gets exactly to the root of my question.
  - dang 3y ago
    I haven't gone back to check this, but I assume users flagged the posts and moderators didn't turn off the flags. We only turn off flags when it seems like there's some basis and at least some chance for a reflective, substantive discussion. That isn't possible in the immediate aftermath of a shocking event like the atrocities of Oct 7—the reactions are necessarily going to be reflexive rather than reflective; completely understandably so—but the odds of any thoughtful conversation in that state of shock are basically zero. Not that this thread or the related ones have been anything close to what I would wish for on HN, in terms of thoughtful conversation, but unfortunately we don't have the ability to make that happen, and not discussing the topic at all seems out of the question as well, so here we are with no good position and no solution.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      I understand, could you please check it and report what you find? But as I understand you, it's left to the moderator's discretion to unflag topics. Is there a checklist / criteria of judging whether the users can have a "reflective" or "reflexive" political discussion? Would 9/11 not be covered because it would be too "reflexive"? Why was this discussion of this "genocide" viewed as not too "reflexive"? You have to see how it looks very one-sided. It would be nice for political discussion topic allowance details to be explained. Currently it leaves a lot of assumptions as you point out.
      - dang 3y ago
        Ok, I checked and the only moderator intervention I found was that we prevented flags from killing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37800508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37800508. That's not the same thing as turning the flags off, but it prevented the story from being marked [flagged][dead] instead of [flagged]. > Would 9/11 not be covered because it would be too "reflexive"? Probably? I'd prefer not to discuss counterfactuals because it's impossible to know. I've explained at length on many occasions how we approach the question of which political topics to allow or turn off flags on - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... I know it's unsatisfying, but moderation of these things is never going to be (and certainly never going to feel) completely consistent. We try our best, but it's not possible, and especially not in hindsight, because moderation is guesswork.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
      >> We only turn off flags when it seems like there's some basis and at least some chance for a reflective, substantive discussion. Mokay, but then can I grumble? I've posted several articles on the subject of the alleged genocide of the Palestinians by Israel's IDF, here on HN I mean, and they all got flagged and not unflagged. I took care to post opinions on both sides of the subject, e.g. this public statement by "over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies" warning of potential genocide [1], and this NYT article by historian of genocide Omer Bartov, saying that genocide is not in evidence ("yet") [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036236 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38228704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38228704 Those are articles by scholars who discuss the subject in the most dispassionate manner imaginable (Bartov is particularly a pleasure to read for his level-headed and erudite analysis, although it's obvious he'll find it very hard to admit genocide by his country which he clearly loves) and I'm pretty sure that means they satisfy the "curious conversation" goal you, dang, hold sacred (and it's good that you do). So what's up? I've been posting this stuff for months and now the subject has exploded in mainstream discourse with the ICJ case, which makes it even more emotionally charged than before. Wouldn't it have been better to get a chance to discuss this before it got to this point? And while I appreciate there's not one side that HN favours, the ability to flag anything anyone dislikes shapes the discourse in the way vocal minorities prefer. Sorry for grumbling. I hope you know I respect and admire the work you've done to keep HN on the straight and narrow.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
A agree about this topic, but "technical"-politics (=tech related) should still belong here (eg. EU vs Apple, EU vs encryption, etc.). After all, who else than us nerds can understand the topic, and discuss it without the "only pedos need e2e encryption, if you are not a pedo, what are you hiding?".
nomdep 3y ago
[flagged]
- vcryan 3y ago
  People don't have to hide being anti-Israel. It's fine. You can be anti-Uganda, anti-France. Be anti-whatever country you like.
  - nomdep 3y ago
    Sure, but I don't think is right to use their moderation powers to bend the guideline of this forum to push those views. Quote: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, [...]. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
    - __loam 3y ago
      If you think dang is trying to steer the conversation in an anti-israel direction, you are completely removed from reality. I've never seen dang operate in any controversial or bad faith way on this site. He's just trying to maintain the quality of the discourse. Are we allowed to discuss the objective facts on the ground in Gaza or are those facts anti-semitic?
    - curiousgal 3y ago
      "Most" does not mean "all".
- LightBug1 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nomdep 3y ago
    I suppose it depends if you follow it in "the news" or your first contact was the Hamas videos of October 7th
    - 3y ago
itsoktocry 3y ago
Yet you waded in to comment, when you could have clicked on any of the other 29 links?

I wish politics articles wouldn't make it to the top page of Hacker News. There's already enough political discussion in a million other places.

by ken47 3y ago

I wish politics articles wouldn't make it to the top page of Hacker News. There's already enough political discussion in a million other places.

dang 3y ago

Yes, and we won't let HN turn into a current affairs site, but this site has always had a certain amount of political content, and that's why this particular thread is happening. For more information, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 and the links there.

theultdev 3y ago
Is there a reason why Oct 7th (the massacre that started this escalation) was not discussed? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1696896000&dateRange=custom&dateStart=1696550400&page=0&prefix=false&query=&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1696896000&dateRange=custom&...
- vcryan 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - theultdev 3y ago
    I was specifically asking about Oct 7th coverage and the coverage this event. While I don't agree with your recount of history, it's off-topic to my question to @dang In fact, the presence and tone of comments like yours vs the lacking and flagging of pro-Israel gets exactly to the root of my question.
- dang 3y ago
  I haven't gone back to check this, but I assume users flagged the posts and moderators didn't turn off the flags. We only turn off flags when it seems like there's some basis and at least some chance for a reflective, substantive discussion. That isn't possible in the immediate aftermath of a shocking event like the atrocities of Oct 7—the reactions are necessarily going to be reflexive rather than reflective; completely understandably so—but the odds of any thoughtful conversation in that state of shock are basically zero. Not that this thread or the related ones have been anything close to what I would wish for on HN, in terms of thoughtful conversation, but unfortunately we don't have the ability to make that happen, and not discussing the topic at all seems out of the question as well, so here we are with no good position and no solution.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    I understand, could you please check it and report what you find? But as I understand you, it's left to the moderator's discretion to unflag topics. Is there a checklist / criteria of judging whether the users can have a "reflective" or "reflexive" political discussion? Would 9/11 not be covered because it would be too "reflexive"? Why was this discussion of this "genocide" viewed as not too "reflexive"? You have to see how it looks very one-sided. It would be nice for political discussion topic allowance details to be explained. Currently it leaves a lot of assumptions as you point out.
    - dang 3y ago
      Ok, I checked and the only moderator intervention I found was that we prevented flags from killing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37800508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37800508. That's not the same thing as turning the flags off, but it prevented the story from being marked [flagged][dead] instead of [flagged]. > Would 9/11 not be covered because it would be too "reflexive"? Probably? I'd prefer not to discuss counterfactuals because it's impossible to know. I've explained at length on many occasions how we approach the question of which political topics to allow or turn off flags on - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... I know it's unsatisfying, but moderation of these things is never going to be (and certainly never going to feel) completely consistent. We try our best, but it's not possible, and especially not in hindsight, because moderation is guesswork.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    >> We only turn off flags when it seems like there's some basis and at least some chance for a reflective, substantive discussion. Mokay, but then can I grumble? I've posted several articles on the subject of the alleged genocide of the Palestinians by Israel's IDF, here on HN I mean, and they all got flagged and not unflagged. I took care to post opinions on both sides of the subject, e.g. this public statement by "over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies" warning of potential genocide [1], and this NYT article by historian of genocide Omer Bartov, saying that genocide is not in evidence ("yet") [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036236 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38228704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38228704 Those are articles by scholars who discuss the subject in the most dispassionate manner imaginable (Bartov is particularly a pleasure to read for his level-headed and erudite analysis, although it's obvious he'll find it very hard to admit genocide by his country which he clearly loves) and I'm pretty sure that means they satisfy the "curious conversation" goal you, dang, hold sacred (and it's good that you do). So what's up? I've been posting this stuff for months and now the subject has exploded in mainstream discourse with the ICJ case, which makes it even more emotionally charged than before. Wouldn't it have been better to get a chance to discuss this before it got to this point? And while I appreciate there's not one side that HN favours, the ability to flag anything anyone dislikes shapes the discourse in the way vocal minorities prefer. Sorry for grumbling. I hope you know I respect and admire the work you've done to keep HN on the straight and narrow.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

A agree about this topic, but "technical"-politics (=tech related) should still belong here (eg. EU vs Apple, EU vs encryption, etc.). After all, who else than us nerds can understand the topic, and discuss it without the "only pedos need e2e encryption, if you are not a pedo, what are you hiding?".

nomdep 3y ago

[flagged]

vcryan 3y ago
People don't have to hide being anti-Israel. It's fine. You can be anti-Uganda, anti-France. Be anti-whatever country you like.
- nomdep 3y ago
  Sure, but I don't think is right to use their moderation powers to bend the guideline of this forum to push those views. Quote: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, [...]. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
  - __loam 3y ago
    If you think dang is trying to steer the conversation in an anti-israel direction, you are completely removed from reality. I've never seen dang operate in any controversial or bad faith way on this site. He's just trying to maintain the quality of the discourse. Are we allowed to discuss the objective facts on the ground in Gaza or are those facts anti-semitic?
  - curiousgal 3y ago
    "Most" does not mean "all".
LightBug1 3y ago
[flagged]
- nomdep 3y ago
  I suppose it depends if you follow it in "the news" or your first contact was the Hamas videos of October 7th
  - 3y ago

itsoktocry 3y ago

Yet you waded in to comment, when you could have clicked on any of the other 29 links?