24 ms·

Why is this flagged? First of all, it's about an entrepreneur traveling to the US for a startup, which is directly relevant to a significant proportion of YCom

Why is this flagged? First of all, it's about an entrepreneur traveling to the US for a startup, which is directly relevant to a significant proportion of YCombinator founders themselves. Beyond its direct relevance to the core founding audience of HN, it is not clickbait or wantonly inflammatory, and is clearly of interest to many based on the comment activity and votes.

sejje 2y ago
[flagged]
- causal 2y ago
  This is an article about immigration which is highly relevant to US tech
  - sejje 2y ago
    Would they cover it on TV news? There's little-to-no discussion about the implications on tech, based on my reading of the comments. Just general politics and nationalism.
    - causal 2y ago
      There is a lot of discussion in this thread on the implications to tech - you see people actively changing their travel plans as a result. We are going to lose tech workers because of how dangerous it is becoming to make the slightest misstep while traveling in the US.
    - Teever 2y ago
      Hackernews has those monthly official posts from that immigration lawyer proberts, immigration stuff is highly important to HN and the users here. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=proberts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=proberts
      - sejje 2y ago
        Okay, so what's your answer? Why's it getting flagged? I just tried to answer guy's question.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Would they cover it on TV news? Yes > There's little-to-no discussion about the implications on tech, based on my reading of the comments. You commented 3 hours in on a topic that was flagged for hours. How much discussion did you expect period? The implications are obvious: other countries's businesses will be terrified reading this and refuse to enter the country. No one wants their liasons arrested by a foreign country. I can imagine many businesses in he EU marking the US as a no-fly zone over this story
mateus1 2y ago
Musk, Trump and DOGE topics are all being flagged, even if they are relevant… The tech world has blessed this regime.
- cutemonster 2y ago
  I don't think 51% of the readers here need to flag something for it to get flagged - maybe more like 5% or 15%? I guess you can conclude that a few percent here likes Trump etc, but far from a majority
  - iinnPP 2y ago
    As someone on neither side of that aisle I can tell you it is the smothering effect of attempting any logical discussion in those topics. The smothering effect comes from one side more often than not. The best part of it all is that you can post like the above with no clear side chosen and the people whom it applies to will react to it negatively as well.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      It is a good point, and I've long been a proponent of this, that everyone needs to flag the excessive elements of "their side" more in the current climate. Humans are humans. Some humans are dumb and emotion-prone. Some humans who are dumb and emotion-prone think their bad behavior is justified because they're on the side of justice/righteousness. It's not enough, in our current climate, to look the other way because someone is on a similar team... Reinvigorating honest, fair discussion requires everyone interact more positively.
    - consteval 2y ago
      In my experience during this last Trump campaign, the most effective way to rile conservatives is not to lie, but rather to tell the truth. Meaning, taking Trump at his word and repeating the words he said, in direct quotes. I think what's happening is that a lot of his constituents like him due to his personality, but they don't necessarily believe he is honest. So, they're betting on his dishonesty and using that as a justification for their support. Meaning, supporting Trump is really not so bad if you assume Trump isn't going to do half the things he says he is. Then, it's like you're supporting an almost normal candidate.
kragen 2y ago
Possibly because the comment section will inevitably collapse into a partisan flamewar.
- metabagel 2y ago
  Shouldn't be a partisan issue.
  - kragen 2y ago
    While I agree with you, it is observably true that many people take different positions on the issue and then demonize those who disagree with them, converting it into a partisan issue. Another commenter (now deleted) made the claim that, saying an issue shouldn't be partisan is “just saying ‘everyone should believe what I do’ but in the lexicon of people who look down their nose at the general public.” They added, “The only nonpartisan issues are the most basic of things that all societies have like ‘don't murder people’ (but even then the minutia become debatable).” Although the comment has been deleted, I think this merits a little further exploration, because it's a widely held viewpoint, and there is some truth to it, though I disagree more than I agree. There are definitely people who mean, "Shouldn't be a partisan issue," that way, but what I mean when I say it is that from the clash of opposing opinions comes the spark of insight, and partisan struggles in which arguments are soldiers do not permit that process to happen: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c... I have frequently observed variants of the following exchange in mathematics classrooms: Professor [writing on blackboard]: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student sitting in the third row of the audience: No, it's x³ + a. Professor: Hmm. [pauses] Student: Because the x from substituting f doesn't cancel. Professor: Yes, you're right. So you see that this just reduces down to x³ + a. Sometimes it goes the other way, and the student is the mistaken one. Neither participant goes into the discussion on the premise that "everyone should believe what they do"; rather, they believe that by discussing the issue they can arrive at an agreement, which may involve changing their own mind. Converting the discussion into partisan struggle prevents that from happening. Imagine what would have happened in my example if the discussion had instead gone as follows: Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: No, it's x³ + a. Professor: I don't remember paying tuition to come and see you lecture. Or, alternatively: Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: You didn't even do a modicum of research. It's x³ + a. Or, how about this? Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: No, it's x³ + a. Professor: You're being manipulated into thinking that this factor is being canceled incorrectly by the horrible evil professor. Or, how about this? Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: "x²" ? Êtes-vous fou ? Restez avec x³ ! This difference comes out in its purest form in mathematics, but it's also possible for discussion and consultation to reach agreement on empirical and even moral issues. But partisanship is an obstacle in that process.
aaron695 2y ago
[flagged]
- leewr 2y ago
  In that case, a link to the real story would be much appreciated.
- starkrights 2y ago
  Can you provide a source for the illegal drug claim? I'm having a seriously hard time finding any articles on this subject mentioning drugs at all.
  - projectazorian 2y ago
    The startup employing her was selling products containing hemp, which used to be illegal but was legalized at the federal level several years ago.
- fourside 2y ago
  Given your concern for accuracy why don’t you provide specifics about what the issues with her side of the story are, or at least a link to an article that does? Because so far you’ve only made vague accusations. What illegal drugs was she selling? The article mentions the company she worked for made a drink with hemp. Is that what you’re referring to?
- motorest 2y ago
  > The article skips she was selling illegal drugs. You are the only one that comes close to even make that claim. I even bothered to Google results involving Jasmine Mooney and drugs. Zero hits. Do you have a source or are you just making up stuff?
Tostino 2y ago
I've noticed this a ton lately. So, so many posts completely brigaded. Regardless of if the flag is removed, it can easily stop discussion and visibility of the thread. I emailed Dang about it when I first noticed it happening, and the response... ``` Sorry for the delay in getting back to you—it's been a crazy last few days! Users flagged that one. We can only guess why users flag things, but there have been so many posts about the current political goings-on that I think there's a lot of fatigue about it. In this case the article was more of an opinion piece than a factual report, so it's probably not one that we'd override the flags on. Daniel (dang) ``` So the system is setup to allow this abuse. It's weaponizing the flag system. I'm sure this type of flagging is already automated by how fast some posts disappear on /new. What's to stop someone from buying enough old accounts and mass flagging other topics to chill discussion / dissent? This could easily be done for a few grand. Rotate accounts doing the flagging and make sure they engage in some "high quality" discussion from time to time to avoid detection. Make sure the same groups of accounts aren't flagging the same posts, etc. E.g. "I never want to see a freaking post about Rust again"... Note: I had to wait hours to post this comment because my account was rate limited. I'm assuming because I'm involved in this discussion at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35157524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35157524 Now by the time I can actually post, this thread is well off the front page. This site is really good at effectively silencing people. Dang, I'd like to know the specific comments where I am going over the line, or are too "low-quality". I have been called out once or twice over the last decade by you, and have agreed that I could have conducted myself better in those instances and tried not to fall back into those patterns.
- pas 2y ago
  there's no need to buy old accounts (lol?), there are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who have extremely strong anti-immigration beliefs, who continue to cheer on the Republican-backed express cruelty for whatever reasons, and some of these people are active on HN receipts: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413634 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413955 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43411269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43411269
avereveard 2y ago
It's about someone with an denied visa trying to work around due immigration process (going to a consulate) by attempting instead to get to a far away border crossing and attempting a crossing there because, in her own recollection of the events, she knew/assumed the office was less strict. And while it's a non story it's framed as a scandal because it resonate with the current political climate and the character is sympathetic to the narrative (productive and upstanding character compared to the ones dominating the previous news cycle on the topic)
- ericzawo 2y ago
  A significant portion of HN readers, right now, are working and living in the United States on the visa that the author was trying to (re)apply for.
- casenmgreen 2y ago
  That is a profound distortion of what happened. I would advise readers to read the article.
- dagmx 2y ago
  I take it you have never applied for a work visa? You may get denied several times over things outside your control. She is one of many, many people who have had a success visa after prior failed attempts.
- footy 2y ago
  it's not a non-story because even if she was trying to get around something she didn't deserve to be _detained_ instead of simply being turned around.
thegrim33 2y ago
1) It violates the HN guideline that if it's covered by mainstream news it's likely off-topic. 2) It's too political in nature, and violates the HN guideline that political topics are likely off-topic. 3) It violates the HN guideline that the content should be things that good hackers would find intellectually satisfying. Raging partisan hate at each other about the latest political/social snafu is not intellectually satisfying. It has nothing to do with engineering, science, technology, etc., it's purely a social/political issue. 4) Such a submission only draws a mass amount of hate and partisan flamebait which, once again, does not belong on HN. You have every other site on the internet available to discuss political issues. 5) Your appeal to popularity, saying it has lots of engagement and therefore belongs here, has zero connection to the HN guidelines for what belongs here. I don't care if 1 person or 1 billion people engage with it. It doesn't change the fact that it's off-topic and decreases the quality of the site.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Popeyes 2y ago
If you post stuff that is negative to top-tier tech bros, like Musk. Then the fan base comes out and flags it.

sejje 2y ago

[flagged]

causal 2y ago
This is an article about immigration which is highly relevant to US tech
- sejje 2y ago
  Would they cover it on TV news? There's little-to-no discussion about the implications on tech, based on my reading of the comments. Just general politics and nationalism.
  - causal 2y ago
    There is a lot of discussion in this thread on the implications to tech - you see people actively changing their travel plans as a result. We are going to lose tech workers because of how dangerous it is becoming to make the slightest misstep while traveling in the US.
  - Teever 2y ago
    Hackernews has those monthly official posts from that immigration lawyer proberts, immigration stuff is highly important to HN and the users here. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=proberts https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=proberts
    - sejje 2y ago
      Okay, so what's your answer? Why's it getting flagged? I just tried to answer guy's question.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Would they cover it on TV news? Yes > There's little-to-no discussion about the implications on tech, based on my reading of the comments. You commented 3 hours in on a topic that was flagged for hours. How much discussion did you expect period? The implications are obvious: other countries's businesses will be terrified reading this and refuse to enter the country. No one wants their liasons arrested by a foreign country. I can imagine many businesses in he EU marking the US as a no-fly zone over this story

mateus1 2y ago

Musk, Trump and DOGE topics are all being flagged, even if they are relevant… The tech world has blessed this regime.

cutemonster 2y ago
I don't think 51% of the readers here need to flag something for it to get flagged - maybe more like 5% or 15%? I guess you can conclude that a few percent here likes Trump etc, but far from a majority
- iinnPP 2y ago
  As someone on neither side of that aisle I can tell you it is the smothering effect of attempting any logical discussion in those topics. The smothering effect comes from one side more often than not. The best part of it all is that you can post like the above with no clear side chosen and the people whom it applies to will react to it negatively as well.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    It is a good point, and I've long been a proponent of this, that everyone needs to flag the excessive elements of "their side" more in the current climate. Humans are humans. Some humans are dumb and emotion-prone. Some humans who are dumb and emotion-prone think their bad behavior is justified because they're on the side of justice/righteousness. It's not enough, in our current climate, to look the other way because someone is on a similar team... Reinvigorating honest, fair discussion requires everyone interact more positively.
  - consteval 2y ago
    In my experience during this last Trump campaign, the most effective way to rile conservatives is not to lie, but rather to tell the truth. Meaning, taking Trump at his word and repeating the words he said, in direct quotes. I think what's happening is that a lot of his constituents like him due to his personality, but they don't necessarily believe he is honest. So, they're betting on his dishonesty and using that as a justification for their support. Meaning, supporting Trump is really not so bad if you assume Trump isn't going to do half the things he says he is. Then, it's like you're supporting an almost normal candidate.

kragen 2y ago

Possibly because the comment section will inevitably collapse into a partisan flamewar.

metabagel 2y ago
Shouldn't be a partisan issue.
- kragen 2y ago
  While I agree with you, it is observably true that many people take different positions on the issue and then demonize those who disagree with them, converting it into a partisan issue. Another commenter (now deleted) made the claim that, saying an issue shouldn't be partisan is “just saying ‘everyone should believe what I do’ but in the lexicon of people who look down their nose at the general public.” They added, “The only nonpartisan issues are the most basic of things that all societies have like ‘don't murder people’ (but even then the minutia become debatable).” Although the comment has been deleted, I think this merits a little further exploration, because it's a widely held viewpoint, and there is some truth to it, though I disagree more than I agree. There are definitely people who mean, "Shouldn't be a partisan issue," that way, but what I mean when I say it is that from the clash of opposing opinions comes the spark of insight, and partisan struggles in which arguments are soldiers do not permit that process to happen: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c... I have frequently observed variants of the following exchange in mathematics classrooms: Professor [writing on blackboard]: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student sitting in the third row of the audience: No, it's x³ + a. Professor: Hmm. [pauses] Student: Because the x from substituting f doesn't cancel. Professor: Yes, you're right. So you see that this just reduces down to x³ + a. Sometimes it goes the other way, and the student is the mistaken one. Neither participant goes into the discussion on the premise that "everyone should believe what they do"; rather, they believe that by discussing the issue they can arrive at an agreement, which may involve changing their own mind. Converting the discussion into partisan struggle prevents that from happening. Imagine what would have happened in my example if the discussion had instead gone as follows: Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: No, it's x³ + a. Professor: I don't remember paying tuition to come and see you lecture. Or, alternatively: Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: You didn't even do a modicum of research. It's x³ + a. Or, how about this? Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: No, it's x³ + a. Professor: You're being manipulated into thinking that this factor is being canceled incorrectly by the horrible evil professor. Or, how about this? Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a. Student: "x²" ? Êtes-vous fou ? Restez avec x³ ! This difference comes out in its purest form in mathematics, but it's also possible for discussion and consultation to reach agreement on empirical and even moral issues. But partisanship is an obstacle in that process.

aaron695 2y ago

[flagged]

leewr 2y ago
In that case, a link to the real story would be much appreciated.
starkrights 2y ago
Can you provide a source for the illegal drug claim? I'm having a seriously hard time finding any articles on this subject mentioning drugs at all.
- projectazorian 2y ago
  The startup employing her was selling products containing hemp, which used to be illegal but was legalized at the federal level several years ago.
fourside 2y ago
Given your concern for accuracy why don’t you provide specifics about what the issues with her side of the story are, or at least a link to an article that does? Because so far you’ve only made vague accusations. What illegal drugs was she selling? The article mentions the company she worked for made a drink with hemp. Is that what you’re referring to?
motorest 2y ago
> The article skips she was selling illegal drugs. You are the only one that comes close to even make that claim. I even bothered to Google results involving Jasmine Mooney and drugs. Zero hits. Do you have a source or are you just making up stuff?

Tostino 2y ago

I've noticed this a ton lately. So, so many posts completely brigaded. Regardless of if the flag is removed, it can easily stop discussion and visibility of the thread. I emailed Dang about it when I first noticed it happening, and the response... ``` Sorry for the delay in getting back to you—it's been a crazy last few days! Users flagged that one. We can only guess why users flag things, but there have been so many posts about the current political goings-on that I think there's a lot of fatigue about it. In this case the article was more of an opinion piece than a factual report, so it's probably not one that we'd override the flags on. Daniel (dang) ``` So the system is setup to allow this abuse. It's weaponizing the flag system. I'm sure this type of flagging is already automated by how fast some posts disappear on /new. What's to stop someone from buying enough old accounts and mass flagging other topics to chill discussion / dissent? This could easily be done for a few grand. Rotate accounts doing the flagging and make sure they engage in some "high quality" discussion from time to time to avoid detection. Make sure the same groups of accounts aren't flagging the same posts, etc. E.g. "I never want to see a freaking post about Rust again"... Note: I had to wait hours to post this comment because my account was rate limited. I'm assuming because I'm involved in this discussion at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35157524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35157524 Now by the time I can actually post, this thread is well off the front page. This site is really good at effectively silencing people. Dang, I'd like to know the specific comments where I am going over the line, or are too "low-quality". I have been called out once or twice over the last decade by you, and have agreed that I could have conducted myself better in those instances and tried not to fall back into those patterns.

pas 2y ago
there's no need to buy old accounts (lol?), there are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who have extremely strong anti-immigration beliefs, who continue to cheer on the Republican-backed express cruelty for whatever reasons, and some of these people are active on HN receipts: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413634 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413955 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43411269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43411269

avereveard 2y ago

It's about someone with an denied visa trying to work around due immigration process (going to a consulate) by attempting instead to get to a far away border crossing and attempting a crossing there because, in her own recollection of the events, she knew/assumed the office was less strict. And while it's a non story it's framed as a scandal because it resonate with the current political climate and the character is sympathetic to the narrative (productive and upstanding character compared to the ones dominating the previous news cycle on the topic)

ericzawo 2y ago
A significant portion of HN readers, right now, are working and living in the United States on the visa that the author was trying to (re)apply for.
casenmgreen 2y ago
That is a profound distortion of what happened. I would advise readers to read the article.
dagmx 2y ago
I take it you have never applied for a work visa? You may get denied several times over things outside your control. She is one of many, many people who have had a success visa after prior failed attempts.
footy 2y ago
it's not a non-story because even if she was trying to get around something she didn't deserve to be _detained_ instead of simply being turned around.

thegrim33 2y ago

1) It violates the HN guideline that if it's covered by mainstream news it's likely off-topic. 2) It's too political in nature, and violates the HN guideline that political topics are likely off-topic. 3) It violates the HN guideline that the content should be things that good hackers would find intellectually satisfying. Raging partisan hate at each other about the latest political/social snafu is not intellectually satisfying. It has nothing to do with engineering, science, technology, etc., it's purely a social/political issue. 4) Such a submission only draws a mass amount of hate and partisan flamebait which, once again, does not belong on HN. You have every other site on the internet available to discuss political issues. 5) Your appeal to popularity, saying it has lots of engagement and therefore belongs here, has zero connection to the HN guidelines for what belongs here. I don't care if 1 person or 1 billion people engage with it. It doesn't change the fact that it's off-topic and decreases the quality of the site.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Popeyes 2y ago

If you post stuff that is negative to top-tier tech bros, like Musk. Then the fan base comes out and flags it.