4 ms·

This is going to fall off the front page very quickly, just watch. The mods suppress anything that makes YC or anything they invest in look bad

ryandrake 2y ago
You predicted it. Already on page 3. Algorithmic or not, we'll never know.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  We will never be able to prove, but we DO know...
- dang 2y ago
  We answer questions about this kind of thing all the time (literally many times a day), both on the site and via email (hn@ycombinator.com). There's no question like this you can't find out the answer to. Whether you want the answer, or like the answer, or choose to believe the answer, are other questions.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    The fact that there can be a thumb on the scale is (or should be) well known by now. Since the thumb is invisible, though, we can never truly know unless it's directly addressed, which was the case with this one. +1 to the other commenter's suggestion of visibly marking manual moderation activity (vs. algorithmic voodoo which is more understandably opaque). We've already got the [flagged] tag that transparently shows end-user moderation activity.
dang 2y ago
Actually we moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is the story. This is the #1 rule of HN moderation and has been since pg first explained it to me on the morning he started showing me how to moderate HN. If anyone wants to read about this, there are ten years' worth of past explanations here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... It looks like a mod downweighted this story but also saved it, along with your comment, for me to review. Since the rule is the rule, I'm reducing the downweight now. (Edit: I've since checked with the mod and indeed their intention was to follow the same rule - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40720026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40720026.) This looks like a flimsy story from a couple of months ago about something from many years ago. It's hard to tell if there's any there-there but, given how this sort of story usually works, the odds seem low*. It's obviously getting attention not because of intellectual curiosity (the right reason on HN) but because of celebrity outrage (a popular human pastime but not the right reason on HN). It's also repetitive of many other outrage threads we've had in recent months—an additional reason to downweight it (beyond the outrage aspect). We never let articles like this stay on HN's frontpage normally—if we did, HN would consist of little else. Still, I'm happy to reduce the downweight on this because that rule is key to the trust we have with the bulk of the community. I think most HN readers know that we moderate shallow outrage stories off the front page, and why; and I think most can appreciate that we bend that rule the other way for the sake of the above principle, even if they don't like it. It doesn't stop people from making up false claims (edit: I mean about HN moderation, like the parent comment), but it does let us answer them in good conscience, and the rest is just standard internet dynamics (sinister speculation, etc.) * Note the photo that describes Geoff as YC's "new president". That hasn't been the case for 5 years, and he stopped being president 18 months ago.
- eduction 2y ago
  > It's hard to tell if there's any there-there but, given how this sort of story usually works, the odds seem low. Not at all. The source links the relevant SEC filing. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849056/000110465921035909/tm218987-1_s1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849056/000110465921... On page 111 the false claim is plainly visible: “ Prior to joining OpenAI, Mr. Altman served as President of Y Combinator from February 2014 until March 2019. Mr. Altman currently serves as the Chairman of the board of directors of Y Combinator.” There is also a screenshot in the Business Times story showing the false claim was visible on the AltC website in April. You can go to the AltC site and confirm that Sam is CEO. The story also includes comment from YC confirming that Sam was never chairman after it was announced he would be. Dang, what is the basis for your comments on this story? The San Francisco Business Times has been a reliable and fairly pro business local source for years. Hardly tabloid journalism. Can you specify and explain one of the “false claims” you allege?
  - tensility 2y ago
    Crisis of trust in Altman reflects back on Y Combinator. They have significant financial motivation to downplay his behavior regardless of any moderators claims.
  - dang 2y ago
    Oh, I meant false claims about HN moderation, like the GP comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40711123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40711123 ("The mods suppress anything that makes YC or anything they invest in look bad"). That wasn't just completely made up, it's the exact opposite of the truth. My comment originally included that explicitly, but I was trying to edit it down a bit and thought this would be clear from the context. Since it wasn't, I've added an edit there now.
    - eduction 2y ago
      You called the story “flimsy.” How so?
    - deleted 2y ago
lnyan 2y ago
The post was moderated within 10 minutes of being submitted: https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=40710417 https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=40710417
- echelon 2y ago
  This tool is amazing. Thank you for sharing it!
- dang 2y ago
  Those were user flags. (I just checked. A mod didn't do anything until 38 minutes later.)

ryandrake 2y ago

You predicted it. Already on page 3. Algorithmic or not, we'll never know.

dmitrygr 2y ago
We will never be able to prove, but we DO know...
dang 2y ago
We answer questions about this kind of thing all the time (literally many times a day), both on the site and via email (hn@ycombinator.com). There's no question like this you can't find out the answer to. Whether you want the answer, or like the answer, or choose to believe the answer, are other questions.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 2y ago
  The fact that there can be a thumb on the scale is (or should be) well known by now. Since the thumb is invisible, though, we can never truly know unless it's directly addressed, which was the case with this one. +1 to the other commenter's suggestion of visibly marking manual moderation activity (vs. algorithmic voodoo which is more understandably opaque). We've already got the [flagged] tag that transparently shows end-user moderation activity.

dang 2y ago

Actually we moderate less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is the story. This is the #1 rule of HN moderation and has been since pg first explained it to me on the morning he started showing me how to moderate HN. If anyone wants to read about this, there are ten years' worth of past explanations here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... It looks like a mod downweighted this story but also saved it, along with your comment, for me to review. Since the rule is the rule, I'm reducing the downweight now. (Edit: I've since checked with the mod and indeed their intention was to follow the same rule - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40720026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40720026.) This looks like a flimsy story from a couple of months ago about something from many years ago. It's hard to tell if there's any there-there but, given how this sort of story usually works, the odds seem low*. It's obviously getting attention not because of intellectual curiosity (the right reason on HN) but because of celebrity outrage (a popular human pastime but not the right reason on HN). It's also repetitive of many other outrage threads we've had in recent months—an additional reason to downweight it (beyond the outrage aspect). We never let articles like this stay on HN's frontpage normally—if we did, HN would consist of little else. Still, I'm happy to reduce the downweight on this because that rule is key to the trust we have with the bulk of the community. I think most HN readers know that we moderate shallow outrage stories off the front page, and why; and I think most can appreciate that we bend that rule the other way for the sake of the above principle, even if they don't like it. It doesn't stop people from making up false claims (edit: I mean about HN moderation, like the parent comment), but it does let us answer them in good conscience, and the rest is just standard internet dynamics (sinister speculation, etc.) * Note the photo that describes Geoff as YC's "new president". That hasn't been the case for 5 years, and he stopped being president 18 months ago.

eduction 2y ago
> It's hard to tell if there's any there-there but, given how this sort of story usually works, the odds seem low. Not at all. The source links the relevant SEC filing. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849056/000110465921035909/tm218987-1_s1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849056/000110465921... On page 111 the false claim is plainly visible: “ Prior to joining OpenAI, Mr. Altman served as President of Y Combinator from February 2014 until March 2019. Mr. Altman currently serves as the Chairman of the board of directors of Y Combinator.” There is also a screenshot in the Business Times story showing the false claim was visible on the AltC website in April. You can go to the AltC site and confirm that Sam is CEO. The story also includes comment from YC confirming that Sam was never chairman after it was announced he would be. Dang, what is the basis for your comments on this story? The San Francisco Business Times has been a reliable and fairly pro business local source for years. Hardly tabloid journalism. Can you specify and explain one of the “false claims” you allege?
- tensility 2y ago
  Crisis of trust in Altman reflects back on Y Combinator. They have significant financial motivation to downplay his behavior regardless of any moderators claims.
- dang 2y ago
  Oh, I meant false claims about HN moderation, like the GP comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40711123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40711123 ("The mods suppress anything that makes YC or anything they invest in look bad"). That wasn't just completely made up, it's the exact opposite of the truth. My comment originally included that explicitly, but I was trying to edit it down a bit and thought this would be clear from the context. Since it wasn't, I've added an edit there now.
  - eduction 2y ago
    You called the story “flimsy.” How so?
  - deleted 2y ago

lnyan 2y ago

The post was moderated within 10 minutes of being submitted: https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=40710417 https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=40710417

echelon 2y ago
This tool is amazing. Thank you for sharing it!
dang 2y ago
Those were user flags. (I just checked. A mod didn't do anything until 38 minutes later.)