4 ms·

Again, there is a concerted effort to flag stories that are highly important, actual and factual. The one thing wrong with it is that they are not flattering fo

Again, there is a concerted effort to flag stories that are highly important, actual and factual. The one thing wrong with it is that they are not flattering for the tech oligarchs. The rules to not discuss meta phenomenons are understandable, but they also are divorced from reality at this point. Personally, I would also like to pretend nothing is happening. The pattern of information suppression is undeniable though, and HN should not pretend there is no moral conflict here. We either allow it to happen, or not. @dang, I guess you are tired to death, and that is why I hesitate to bring it up. I think the flagging system makes it too easy to suppress unwelcome information at this point. Maybe you are willing to react?

dang 2y ago
> The one thing wrong with it is that they are not flattering for the tech oligarchs HN hosts plenty of threads that are "not flattering for the tech oligarchs", so I don't think we're considering the same things. The issue here is repetition. Avoiding too much repetition on HN's front page is a core principle [1] (or rather, an important consequence of the core principle [2]). There have been quite a few frontpage threads about goings-on in the U.S. government right now (I can think of 4 from yesterday, and there were no doubt more that I've forgotten). It's not all off topic, but at the same time we can't have every one of these threads on the front page—it wouldn't leave any room for anything else, and HN is not primarily a political or current affairs site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Also, it would provoke an even larger backlash from the community (who don't come here primarily for those things) than the one currently complaining about flags. So what do we do? Here is the basic approach: When there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) [3], we tend to downweight follow-ups and less-substantial articles and try to reserve frontpage slots for stories that haven't been discussed yet, have articles that can serve as a foundation for substantive discussion, and contain significant new information [4]. In this way, HN can host a certain amount of frontpage discussion about the latest MOT without being overrun by it. People inevitably disagree about which specific articles are substantive, contain SNI, and so on, but from a moderation point of view the specific composition of articles matters less than the underlying principles [6]. The latter have held up well over the years and haven't changed. Whenever a divisive MOT comes along, the users who feel most passionately always complain that not enough articles are getting through. This time is different, they say, and therefore we should change the rules [5]. The trouble is that "this time" always seems different. HN has been around long enough to undergo (and survive) many of these waves. The main thing we learned from these experiences is no, the rules didn't need to change, and we were right to stick to them. MOTs come and go, no tsunami lasts forever, and preserving HN for its intended purpose is the right strategy. If people want to make a case for a particular article meeting the criteria I mentioned, and deserving to be unflagged and maybe be on the front page, that's great. But please familiarize yourselves with the principles first, so we can be having the same conversation. A common case is when people's strong passions about a MOT make them feel like every related article is critical and needs emergency frontpage accommodation. Then when that doesn't happen, they feel like the system is rigged, oligarchy overlords are suppressing truth, the mods are secretly on the other side, and other intense imaginings. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20major%20ongoing%20topic&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [5] Actually, this being the internet, they're more likely to say things like "the mods are suppressing discussion to serve their masters" and so on. [6] I wrote a different long thing about this a couple weeks ago, should anyone strangely want more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306.
- exceptione 2y ago
  Thank you for your lengthy response, appreciated. You must have done something extremely bad in your previous life for having this job. A short response: > The issue here is repetition. I trust your word about that. I understand you did the flagging in this case? If so, in that case it might spare you explanations if you had a toggle for "too much related subjects at this moment", and it would spare others submitting relevant pieces about the subject. Like [dupe] is also a helpful tag. In this case, the MOT topic that is allowed to be discussed (afaik) is the purging of information by the Trump decrees. The topics we posted here are about something else, namely the fact that Musk's servants are taking highly sensitive, personal data from government systems (even from air gapped ones). Also, I am sure to have seen high quality submissions taken down months before these things became actuality. You can guess that if you see these kinds of topics over a longer period of time taken down, you start to form hypotheses. > "this time" always feels different. I understand that people can be passionate about many things. The problem is that the flood of things happening are overwhelming, precisely to avoid meaningful discussion. We are not discussing the new logo of Twitter, we talk about new history lemmas on Wikipedia. In the end it is your call, and I can see that you are in quite an impossible situation. My personal view though is that at the time the house of Weimar is burning down, we should be able to process more than 1/2 "actuality" topics. So yes, you can tell I think this time is different. As a personal statement, my fear is we will look back and conclude that this time indeed wasn't different from its future. We made it so. Whatever you decide going forward, I respect your work and wish you good luck!
  - dang 2y ago
    > You must have done something extremely bad in your previous life for having this job. Well that made me lol thanks! > I understand you did the flagging in this case? Oh no - users do the flagging, in this case and nearly every case. What we do, when we see a story like this, is take a look and see if it would make sense to turn the flags off according to the criteria I described above. I did that 3 or 4 times yesterday, for example, including once or twice in response to emails that people sent, advocating for a particular story. > and it would spare others submitting relevant pieces about the subject I don't think that would work. Users are going to submit what they want no matter what we say or do. > the MOT topic that is allowed to be discussed (afaik) is the purging of information by the Trump decrees. The topics we posted here are about something else I would call that the same MOT. One could name it "the aggressive and perhaps unprecedented transition of federal power going on in the US government right now" -something like that. > namely the fact that Musk's servants are taking highly sensitive, personal data from government systems (even from air gapped ones) The only submission about that which I've seen to date is the OP, and here (as some users pointed out) the reliability of the source is a little unclear. If there's a solid, relatively neutral third party report about this, it might be a better fit for HN. I googled and didn't find one (I mean on this point specifically) but I didn't search deeply. > Also, I am sure to have seen high quality submissions taken down months before these things became actuality. I'm always happy to explain what happened in any particular case, but I can only do that if I have specific links to look at. > You can guess that if you see these kinds of topics over a longer period of time taken down, you start to form hypotheses. Alas, there is no upper bound on the hypotheses that users will form, and no lower bound on how much information they require before doing so. This is something we just have to live with and address as best we can. My strategy is to answer as many comments as I can [1], and to accept that no matter what I do, its effect on this problem will have measure zero. > My personal view though is that at the time the house of Weimar is burning down, we should be able to process more than 1/2 "actuality" topics I hear you! and I don't mean to be dismissive—I know a lot people share your view right now—but I have to point out that to invoke the analogy of Weimar is already to assume your conclusion. This is by far the most common historical analogy that people reach for, and it also happens to be by far the most activating to (let's call it) the social nervous system. I think our job is to down-regulate that as much as possible for as long as possible, even though it means I'll be called (a) an enabler of Nazis, (b) a Nazi sympathizer, and (c) probably a Nazi myself, because that is how the internet game is played. If I understand internet dynamics, then it's not true that this-time-is-different [2]; it's just how it feels. But I could be wrong. If what-happens-after-Weimar happens, I'll be happy (well, not happy, but willing) to admit having made the wrong bet, if there's still time to do so. [1] (and emails—but it's better to do it in the comments because then there's a chance that more people will see it) [2] I mean for HN. Obviously the events going on right now are different from what happened before; but the only aspect that it's my job to comment on here is the HN moderation aspect.

dang 2y ago

> The one thing wrong with it is that they are not flattering for the tech oligarchs HN hosts plenty of threads that are "not flattering for the tech oligarchs", so I don't think we're considering the same things. The issue here is repetition. Avoiding too much repetition on HN's front page is a core principle [1] (or rather, an important consequence of the core principle [2]). There have been quite a few frontpage threads about goings-on in the U.S. government right now (I can think of 4 from yesterday, and there were no doubt more that I've forgotten). It's not all off topic, but at the same time we can't have every one of these threads on the front page—it wouldn't leave any room for anything else, and HN is not primarily a political or current affairs site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Also, it would provoke an even larger backlash from the community (who don't come here primarily for those things) than the one currently complaining about flags. So what do we do? Here is the basic approach: When there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) [3], we tend to downweight follow-ups and less-substantial articles and try to reserve frontpage slots for stories that haven't been discussed yet, have articles that can serve as a foundation for substantive discussion, and contain significant new information [4]. In this way, HN can host a certain amount of frontpage discussion about the latest MOT without being overrun by it. People inevitably disagree about which specific articles are substantive, contain SNI, and so on, but from a moderation point of view the specific composition of articles matters less than the underlying principles [6]. The latter have held up well over the years and haven't changed. Whenever a divisive MOT comes along, the users who feel most passionately always complain that not enough articles are getting through. This time is different, they say, and therefore we should change the rules [5]. The trouble is that "this time" always seems different. HN has been around long enough to undergo (and survive) many of these waves. The main thing we learned from these experiences is no, the rules didn't need to change, and we were right to stick to them. MOTs come and go, no tsunami lasts forever, and preserving HN for its intended purpose is the right strategy. If people want to make a case for a particular article meeting the criteria I mentioned, and deserving to be unflagged and maybe be on the front page, that's great. But please familiarize yourselves with the principles first, so we can be having the same conversation. A common case is when people's strong passions about a MOT make them feel like every related article is critical and needs emergency frontpage accommodation. Then when that doesn't happen, they feel like the system is rigged, oligarchy overlords are suppressing truth, the mods are secretly on the other side, and other intense imaginings. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20major%20ongoing%20topic&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [5] Actually, this being the internet, they're more likely to say things like "the mods are suppressing discussion to serve their masters" and so on. [6] I wrote a different long thing about this a couple weeks ago, should anyone strangely want more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306.

exceptione 2y ago
Thank you for your lengthy response, appreciated. You must have done something extremely bad in your previous life for having this job. A short response: > The issue here is repetition. I trust your word about that. I understand you did the flagging in this case? If so, in that case it might spare you explanations if you had a toggle for "too much related subjects at this moment", and it would spare others submitting relevant pieces about the subject. Like [dupe] is also a helpful tag. In this case, the MOT topic that is allowed to be discussed (afaik) is the purging of information by the Trump decrees. The topics we posted here are about something else, namely the fact that Musk's servants are taking highly sensitive, personal data from government systems (even from air gapped ones). Also, I am sure to have seen high quality submissions taken down months before these things became actuality. You can guess that if you see these kinds of topics over a longer period of time taken down, you start to form hypotheses. > "this time" always feels different. I understand that people can be passionate about many things. The problem is that the flood of things happening are overwhelming, precisely to avoid meaningful discussion. We are not discussing the new logo of Twitter, we talk about new history lemmas on Wikipedia. In the end it is your call, and I can see that you are in quite an impossible situation. My personal view though is that at the time the house of Weimar is burning down, we should be able to process more than 1/2 "actuality" topics. So yes, you can tell I think this time is different. As a personal statement, my fear is we will look back and conclude that this time indeed wasn't different from its future. We made it so. Whatever you decide going forward, I respect your work and wish you good luck!
- dang 2y ago
  > You must have done something extremely bad in your previous life for having this job. Well that made me lol thanks! > I understand you did the flagging in this case? Oh no - users do the flagging, in this case and nearly every case. What we do, when we see a story like this, is take a look and see if it would make sense to turn the flags off according to the criteria I described above. I did that 3 or 4 times yesterday, for example, including once or twice in response to emails that people sent, advocating for a particular story. > and it would spare others submitting relevant pieces about the subject I don't think that would work. Users are going to submit what they want no matter what we say or do. > the MOT topic that is allowed to be discussed (afaik) is the purging of information by the Trump decrees. The topics we posted here are about something else I would call that the same MOT. One could name it "the aggressive and perhaps unprecedented transition of federal power going on in the US government right now" -something like that. > namely the fact that Musk's servants are taking highly sensitive, personal data from government systems (even from air gapped ones) The only submission about that which I've seen to date is the OP, and here (as some users pointed out) the reliability of the source is a little unclear. If there's a solid, relatively neutral third party report about this, it might be a better fit for HN. I googled and didn't find one (I mean on this point specifically) but I didn't search deeply. > Also, I am sure to have seen high quality submissions taken down months before these things became actuality. I'm always happy to explain what happened in any particular case, but I can only do that if I have specific links to look at. > You can guess that if you see these kinds of topics over a longer period of time taken down, you start to form hypotheses. Alas, there is no upper bound on the hypotheses that users will form, and no lower bound on how much information they require before doing so. This is something we just have to live with and address as best we can. My strategy is to answer as many comments as I can [1], and to accept that no matter what I do, its effect on this problem will have measure zero. > My personal view though is that at the time the house of Weimar is burning down, we should be able to process more than 1/2 "actuality" topics I hear you! and I don't mean to be dismissive—I know a lot people share your view right now—but I have to point out that to invoke the analogy of Weimar is already to assume your conclusion. This is by far the most common historical analogy that people reach for, and it also happens to be by far the most activating to (let's call it) the social nervous system. I think our job is to down-regulate that as much as possible for as long as possible, even though it means I'll be called (a) an enabler of Nazis, (b) a Nazi sympathizer, and (c) probably a Nazi myself, because that is how the internet game is played. If I understand internet dynamics, then it's not true that this-time-is-different [2]; it's just how it feels. But I could be wrong. If what-happens-after-Weimar happens, I'll be happy (well, not happy, but willing) to admit having made the wrong bet, if there's still time to do so. [1] (and emails—but it's better to do it in the comments because then there's a chance that more people will see it) [2] I mean for HN. Obviously the events going on right now are different from what happened before; but the only aspect that it's my job to comment on here is the HN moderation aspect.