4 ms·

I'm not sure why the only comment on this thread is flagged. It only quotes a couple of sentences from the article, which are directly related to the headline.

I'm not sure why the only comment on this thread is flagged. It only quotes a couple of sentences from the article, which are directly related to the headline. It was provided in addition to a paywall bypass link, and without additional commentary from the poster, all of which I can appreciate. As someone with a background in academia, this is something that I myself am interested in reading, and am now wanting to find out more about. So, why was the comment flagged? Is there some unwritten rule that I'm unaware of? The poster seems to have a significant karma and a not-new account, so it seems suspicious that this has happened. Can anyone shed some light on this?

wmf 2y ago
I dislike comments that merely summarize or quote the article but I don't think they should be flagged.
- coreyp_1 2y ago
  Interesting. I have a completely different take. HN doesn't allow the poster of a URL to say why they posted it, so the only option is to do so in a comment. It seemed obvious to me that giving a quote is the most un-biased way of commenting on an article. The second point is that the comment also included a non-paywalled link, which was most definitely of value. I've been on HN for a long time, and there are plenty of times where a comment's only content is that same type of link, and it doesn't get flagged. And this comment provided it first. So, in this situation, we have a comment with a link that bypasses a paywall (which is normal and seen as beneficial), paired with a quote of the factual tldr of the article, which seemes to me as the _perfect_ way to start a discussion, and yet the comment itself is flagged. Yeah, I disagree with that.
  - pvg 2y ago
    It seemed obvious to me that giving a quote is the most un-biased way of commenting on an article. Most of the time (like in this case) it's not actually commenting at all - HN is for commenting, you're right, which is why things that aren't comments tend to get moderated away. "unbiased" doesn't come into it - the goal is interesting conversation not 'unbiased' summaries. The participants' opinions and thoughts are what counts. "Bias" (i.e. having a viewpoint) beats pasting any day, in a forum. The second point is that the comment also included a non-paywalled link, Those are super useful and encouraged but you can't really use them to turn bad [non]comments into good comments. Like, there's no 'here's a bypass link and also some slurs', as a limiting case sort of example. That comment would also sensibly be flagged, no? Both of those things were valuable to me. That's great but lots of people find things that don't work on HN (for various reasons) valuable. Some people like LLM-generated comments. Some people feel some particular topic should be on the front page daily. Neither of these are unreasonable preferences but they break a messageboard with HN's goals. To advocate for some change in the way the place works, you need a better, more broadly applicable formulation than simply personal preference. Personal preference obviously matters a great deal but it's not a practical way to refine an existing thing with wide usage.
pvg 2y ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20summary&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- coreyp_1 2y ago
  OK. But I completely disagree. The comment in question (1) provided a link bypassing the paywall (which is very valuable and conducive to inclusivisity and enables more people to be a part of the conversation), and (2) provided context as to why the OP thought that it should be posted (since HN does not allow any explanatory text to accompany a link when it is posted). Both of those things were valuable to me. If you want to say, "This site belongs to YCombinator, and they can do whatever they want," then fine, I agree with you. But then you can never make any arguments about "community" because evidently the community actually doesn't matter for anything other than free content generation. If you want to say, "The community feels that this is a low quality comment..." then I strongly disagree because I'm part of the community, and I didn't exactly get a vote. I literally couldn't upvote it or vouch for it. I couldn't even respond to the comment in question, nor did I even know why the censoring took place. It can't be both ways. As it is, it Streisanded me into digging deeper because it looks like a cover-up when someone is silenced without explanation. And, regardless of the politics involved (I don't care about politics __AT ALL__), this affects me because I have been a long-time member of this community.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

wmf 2y ago

I dislike comments that merely summarize or quote the article but I don't think they should be flagged.

coreyp_1 2y ago
Interesting. I have a completely different take. HN doesn't allow the poster of a URL to say why they posted it, so the only option is to do so in a comment. It seemed obvious to me that giving a quote is the most un-biased way of commenting on an article. The second point is that the comment also included a non-paywalled link, which was most definitely of value. I've been on HN for a long time, and there are plenty of times where a comment's only content is that same type of link, and it doesn't get flagged. And this comment provided it first. So, in this situation, we have a comment with a link that bypasses a paywall (which is normal and seen as beneficial), paired with a quote of the factual tldr of the article, which seemes to me as the _perfect_ way to start a discussion, and yet the comment itself is flagged. Yeah, I disagree with that.
- pvg 2y ago
  It seemed obvious to me that giving a quote is the most un-biased way of commenting on an article. Most of the time (like in this case) it's not actually commenting at all - HN is for commenting, you're right, which is why things that aren't comments tend to get moderated away. "unbiased" doesn't come into it - the goal is interesting conversation not 'unbiased' summaries. The participants' opinions and thoughts are what counts. "Bias" (i.e. having a viewpoint) beats pasting any day, in a forum. The second point is that the comment also included a non-paywalled link, Those are super useful and encouraged but you can't really use them to turn bad [non]comments into good comments. Like, there's no 'here's a bypass link and also some slurs', as a limiting case sort of example. That comment would also sensibly be flagged, no? Both of those things were valuable to me. That's great but lots of people find things that don't work on HN (for various reasons) valuable. Some people like LLM-generated comments. Some people feel some particular topic should be on the front page daily. Neither of these are unreasonable preferences but they break a messageboard with HN's goals. To advocate for some change in the way the place works, you need a better, more broadly applicable formulation than simply personal preference. Personal preference obviously matters a great deal but it's not a practical way to refine an existing thing with wide usage.

pvg 2y ago

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20summary&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

coreyp_1 2y ago
OK. But I completely disagree. The comment in question (1) provided a link bypassing the paywall (which is very valuable and conducive to inclusivisity and enables more people to be a part of the conversation), and (2) provided context as to why the OP thought that it should be posted (since HN does not allow any explanatory text to accompany a link when it is posted). Both of those things were valuable to me. If you want to say, "This site belongs to YCombinator, and they can do whatever they want," then fine, I agree with you. But then you can never make any arguments about "community" because evidently the community actually doesn't matter for anything other than free content generation. If you want to say, "The community feels that this is a low quality comment..." then I strongly disagree because I'm part of the community, and I didn't exactly get a vote. I literally couldn't upvote it or vouch for it. I couldn't even respond to the comment in question, nor did I even know why the censoring took place. It can't be both ways. As it is, it Streisanded me into digging deeper because it looks like a cover-up when someone is silenced without explanation. And, regardless of the politics involved (I don't care about politics __AT ALL__), this affects me because I have been a long-time member of this community.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]