4 ms·

As I pointed out in another comment the HN guidelines say: On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. I find it interesting that I'm paid

As I pointed out in another comment the HN guidelines say: On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. I find it interesting that I'm paid less than my male colleagues for the same amount of work (I am). You're welcome to argue I'm not a good hacker. >> Look, here you are, under a story about the origin of "pencil lead", going on about something entirely different, using the commenting system for private messaging. Yep, and here you are ranting that I violated the rule that the commenting system can't be used for private messaging; a rule that you invented on the spot just so you could rant at me. Btw, I do consider this thing we're having right now "civilised debate". One can argue robustly, speak frankly as you just did, and still be civilised. But one needs to be an adult to handle that.

kazinator 3y ago
What that means is topics that hackers in particular would find interesting compared to non-hackers. If 90% of the hackers find something interesting, but 90% non-hackers also find it interesting, then it's not a hackerly topic. I.e. "... that good hackers (in particular, in contrast to the general population) would find interesting". That's the non-strawman interpretation. I'm positive I didn't just invent the idea that public forums are not for private messaging, let alone invent it today. In any case, that usually runs afoul of basic topicality. If you have to grasp at strawman, literal interpretations of the written guidelines to justify your behavior, some people who don't take those interpretations will probably find that behavior against the guidelines. I'm only articulating some possible reasons why your submission might be being flagged. (What it means for me to be wrong here is that, no those are not the reasons; it's something else.) In my opinion, possibly wrong, to avoid being flagged under a crowdsourced moderation model, your interpretation of the guidelines has to be similar to that of the crowd. The crowd is not going to take a literal, strawman interpretation of the rules. Maybe some of the crowd will but not all of it, and only a small fraction of the crowd is needed to flag you. If you're straining at the boundaries of the guidelines, the odds are heavily stacked against you.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  I agree with your last paragraph but that some subjects may not be popular is not a reason to not post them. The worst that can happen is that the articles keep getting flagged, and I give up, or there is some intervention from dang. The most likely outcome is that they're just ignored, as is the case with most stuff I post (controversial or not). In the meantime I feel free to continue contributing just as I do.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    Well, the worst that could happen is that you get banned. But then you can make new accounts and so it goes. Basically the same approach as that of any crypto scam promoter. Except, the content is different. The content justifies the approach, right? So whatever. No content is ever inappropriate for any site no matter what the feedback from the community; as the saying goes, "if you just throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick".
    - nkurz 3y ago
      Your logic isn't exactly wrong, but I don't think it applies here. A woman in tech wants to have a discussion about a recent report saying that women in tech are paid less than men for equivalent work. Some people flag it to prevent discussion, some people vouch for it, and in the end the flaggers win. I'd say it's categorically different than a crypto scam. On the other hand, I think you're right that there is a spectrum. It's hard to find a clear rule that works for everything. People here also want to discuss trans rights, the Christian right, Trump's most recent gaffes, Biden's most recent gaffes, and the wars in Gaza and and Ukraine. It's probably reasonable to declare at least some of these as off-topic, at least most of the time. On the third hand, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule for which articles get flagged off and which remain. Multiple attempts to discuss the politics that affect Google's public facing products get flagged off again and again, while "What Have Fourteen Years of Conservative Rule Done to Britain?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39855704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39855704) stayed up. I worry that we're granting too much of a right to censor to a small minority of users. It's asymmetric, in that the "free speech" side has a very high bar for censoring things, while those with less compunction and more focussed on "winning" use flagging as a tool. Personally, I trust the human moderator (Dan) more than I trust the users. For at least the articles that have any significant numbers of upvotes, I'd like for him to decide case-by-case whether the article stays or goes according to some principle, even if that principle just whether he thinks it will lead to productive discussion. And I think the article we're discussing here (women's salaries in tech, not lead pencils) probably clears the bar and merits discussion.

kazinator 3y ago

What that means is topics that hackers in particular would find interesting compared to non-hackers. If 90% of the hackers find something interesting, but 90% non-hackers also find it interesting, then it's not a hackerly topic. I.e. "... that good hackers (in particular, in contrast to the general population) would find interesting". That's the non-strawman interpretation. I'm positive I didn't just invent the idea that public forums are not for private messaging, let alone invent it today. In any case, that usually runs afoul of basic topicality. If you have to grasp at strawman, literal interpretations of the written guidelines to justify your behavior, some people who don't take those interpretations will probably find that behavior against the guidelines. I'm only articulating some possible reasons why your submission might be being flagged. (What it means for me to be wrong here is that, no those are not the reasons; it's something else.) In my opinion, possibly wrong, to avoid being flagged under a crowdsourced moderation model, your interpretation of the guidelines has to be similar to that of the crowd. The crowd is not going to take a literal, strawman interpretation of the rules. Maybe some of the crowd will but not all of it, and only a small fraction of the crowd is needed to flag you. If you're straining at the boundaries of the guidelines, the odds are heavily stacked against you.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
I agree with your last paragraph but that some subjects may not be popular is not a reason to not post them. The worst that can happen is that the articles keep getting flagged, and I give up, or there is some intervention from dang. The most likely outcome is that they're just ignored, as is the case with most stuff I post (controversial or not). In the meantime I feel free to continue contributing just as I do.
- kazinator 3y ago
  Well, the worst that could happen is that you get banned. But then you can make new accounts and so it goes. Basically the same approach as that of any crypto scam promoter. Except, the content is different. The content justifies the approach, right? So whatever. No content is ever inappropriate for any site no matter what the feedback from the community; as the saying goes, "if you just throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick".
  - nkurz 3y ago
    Your logic isn't exactly wrong, but I don't think it applies here. A woman in tech wants to have a discussion about a recent report saying that women in tech are paid less than men for equivalent work. Some people flag it to prevent discussion, some people vouch for it, and in the end the flaggers win. I'd say it's categorically different than a crypto scam. On the other hand, I think you're right that there is a spectrum. It's hard to find a clear rule that works for everything. People here also want to discuss trans rights, the Christian right, Trump's most recent gaffes, Biden's most recent gaffes, and the wars in Gaza and and Ukraine. It's probably reasonable to declare at least some of these as off-topic, at least most of the time. On the third hand, there doesn't seem to be a clear rule for which articles get flagged off and which remain. Multiple attempts to discuss the politics that affect Google's public facing products get flagged off again and again, while "What Have Fourteen Years of Conservative Rule Done to Britain?" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39855704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39855704) stayed up. I worry that we're granting too much of a right to censor to a small minority of users. It's asymmetric, in that the "free speech" side has a very high bar for censoring things, while those with less compunction and more focussed on "winning" use flagging as a tool. Personally, I trust the human moderator (Dan) more than I trust the users. For at least the articles that have any significant numbers of upvotes, I'd like for him to decide case-by-case whether the article stays or goes according to some principle, even if that principle just whether he thinks it will lead to productive discussion. And I think the article we're discussing here (women's salaries in tech, not lead pencils) probably clears the bar and merits discussion.