4 ms·

> But overall the algorithm has kept HN an interesting place. Any good moderation policy has side effects and tradeoffs. I don’t think so. From his follow-up:

> But overall the algorithm has kept HN an interesting place. Any good moderation policy has side effects and tradeoffs. I don’t think so. From his follow-up: > My thesis is that the above might once have been an accurate summary of how Hacker News functions, but hasn’t been for years, and that there now exists a cabal of moderator/admins with their thumbs on the scale, and their personal predilections are the primary steering force of what’s permitted to surface and what gets ghosted. This moderation cabal operates more or less in secret. Their actions, and thus even their usernames, are invisible — lest the HN community discover that it’s steering things about as much as Maggie Simpson is. Sounds right to me.

rurp 2y ago
I think a simpler theory for this or any site not ranking high is that a small group of users consistently flag the posts, and flags carry a lot of weight. We've seen this more blatantly with Elon articles. Almost any submission that paints him in a negative light gets flagged quickly and rarely makes the front page.
- vessenes 2y ago
  Interesting take. I was going to say any comment that doesn’t pillory him gets downvoted immediately.
js2 2y ago
This is paranoid conspiracy-theory stuff. Or it's bait. It's also not falsifiable. Dang can disclaim it but Gruber's next step would just be to write "of course dang would say that." Frankly, I find this submission and Gruber's followup insufferable and it makes me want to read him less. I say that as a regular reader of his blog who's purchased several of his t-shirts over the years. But really, these posts alone make me no longer a fan.
- tiltowait 2y ago
  The treatment of Daring Fireball articles does feel inorganic to me, but if it is, no one who's talking can say whether it's because of mod abuse or a group of users who really hate the site and want to punish it. And ... while I can understand frustration and disappointment on his end, the long post yesterday, let alone a second post, and apparently now discussion of it on a podcast where he was a guest, is overboard. He often comes across as a touch full of himself, and it's on blatant display here. Don't blame anyone for being turned off.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I can't comment of DF specifically, but as someone who uses the "flag" link when I think it's appropriate, I see people complaining all the time that their pet topic was flagged/downvoted, and then they instantly go to "the mods"/conspiracy mode, and I'm thinking "I'm just an average HN user, and I just thought the topic sucked or was inappropriate for HN. No 'conspiracy' needed, we just don't like your content." All I can say is that I found this particular DF post annoying and narcissistic to the extreme. I'm glad it was flagged.
- graeme 2y ago
  I don't think it is. The moderation guidelines explicitly say there can be site weightings. I think it's likely there is a negative site weighting on Daring Fireball and multiple other sites. My guess would be it was algorithmically applied based on past tendency for them to gather early flags or flamewar comments, rather than personal animus. Why there would be a site weight rank is not falsifiable except by the mod team. But whether there is one seems much clearer. Daring Fireball submissions perform very poorly, the notable one that should have been #1 by any measure was "Something is Rotten in the State of Cupertino". Might be the most notable Apple article of the decade. That it wasn't number one suggests negative site weight. Which, I'll repeat, is explicitly within the public guidelines for how the site is run. Not a paranoid conspiracy. I doubt the mods would comment on specific site weights as that would open a whole can of worms. Which is frustrating for sites, but I can't think of any social media algo that's public.
  - js2 2y ago
    The paranoid part: "there now exists a cabal of moderator/admins with their thumbs on the scale, and their personal predilections are the primary steering force." What exactly does Gruber think this cabal has against him? He's not that important. The stuff he writes in the grand scheme of things isn't all that interesting. It's a niche within a niche. There's not really even all that much to comment on about his posts, frankly. They are opinion pieces. Comments on opinions pieces usually take the form of flame wars or are simply too uninteresting to have much to say about. Same for the other bloggers he mentioned who think they are also being downweighted. I don't agree his "something rotten" post was worthy of #1. After I read it (independently of HN), I sorta nodded along but never thought to submit it here. There's only 28 comments on it, none very interesting; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43348891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43348891 It only got 176 upvotes. That said, it's clearly lower than other submissions from that day, ending in the 88th position. I can't find any lower ranked submission with even close to that score: https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2025-03-13&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2025-03-13&p=3 Also, geez, people sure do spam his posts to this site: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=daringfireball.net https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=daringfireball.net So maybe it does get down weighted due to all the repeated submissions.
- philistine 2y ago
  Gruber's There is something rotten in the State of Cupertino is one of the most excoriating Apple take in years, in large part because it comes from Gruber. Why was this not front page !?
  - xcrunner529 2y ago
    And has been around everywhere else. It's not even defensible. Something is rotten in Hacker News too and unfortunately for the cabal, Gruber wrote a very popular article that shined light into their back room dealings. Guarantee you it's more popular than the million "nautil.us" or whatever junk posted here.
- adamlett 2y ago
  It's also not falsifiable. Dang can disclaim it but Gruber's next step would just be to write "of course dang would say that." If all Dang did was deny, then yeah, it would be quite reasonable to not trust him. But presumably Dang is able to provide a reasonable alternative explanation and has the receipts to back it up.
graeme 2y ago
He cited the mod guidelines, which include: >Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action. It's very plausible to me that there IS a negative site weighting to DF. But that it might come from the aggregate history of flags or angry/contentious comments posted on DF articles. It certainly could be a personal moderator thumb on the scale, but at the scale of HN I'd expect they have some automated formula for site weighting based on the other factors mentioned.
colonel-e-hutz 2y ago
If someone is putting their thumbs on the scale to suppress Gruber’s articles after he posted that Palestinian civilians being subject to war crimes, denied food, water and electricity was "fucking around and finding out"… well good honestly. Suppress this genocide apologist.
- CarlitosHighway 2y ago
  What genocide?

rurp 2y ago

I think a simpler theory for this or any site not ranking high is that a small group of users consistently flag the posts, and flags carry a lot of weight. We've seen this more blatantly with Elon articles. Almost any submission that paints him in a negative light gets flagged quickly and rarely makes the front page.

vessenes 2y ago
Interesting take. I was going to say any comment that doesn’t pillory him gets downvoted immediately.

js2 2y ago

This is paranoid conspiracy-theory stuff. Or it's bait. It's also not falsifiable. Dang can disclaim it but Gruber's next step would just be to write "of course dang would say that." Frankly, I find this submission and Gruber's followup insufferable and it makes me want to read him less. I say that as a regular reader of his blog who's purchased several of his t-shirts over the years. But really, these posts alone make me no longer a fan.

tiltowait 2y ago
The treatment of Daring Fireball articles does feel inorganic to me, but if it is, no one who's talking can say whether it's because of mod abuse or a group of users who really hate the site and want to punish it. And ... while I can understand frustration and disappointment on his end, the long post yesterday, let alone a second post, and apparently now discussion of it on a podcast where he was a guest, is overboard. He often comes across as a touch full of himself, and it's on blatant display here. Don't blame anyone for being turned off.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I can't comment of DF specifically, but as someone who uses the "flag" link when I think it's appropriate, I see people complaining all the time that their pet topic was flagged/downvoted, and then they instantly go to "the mods"/conspiracy mode, and I'm thinking "I'm just an average HN user, and I just thought the topic sucked or was inappropriate for HN. No 'conspiracy' needed, we just don't like your content." All I can say is that I found this particular DF post annoying and narcissistic to the extreme. I'm glad it was flagged.
graeme 2y ago
I don't think it is. The moderation guidelines explicitly say there can be site weightings. I think it's likely there is a negative site weighting on Daring Fireball and multiple other sites. My guess would be it was algorithmically applied based on past tendency for them to gather early flags or flamewar comments, rather than personal animus. Why there would be a site weight rank is not falsifiable except by the mod team. But whether there is one seems much clearer. Daring Fireball submissions perform very poorly, the notable one that should have been #1 by any measure was "Something is Rotten in the State of Cupertino". Might be the most notable Apple article of the decade. That it wasn't number one suggests negative site weight. Which, I'll repeat, is explicitly within the public guidelines for how the site is run. Not a paranoid conspiracy. I doubt the mods would comment on specific site weights as that would open a whole can of worms. Which is frustrating for sites, but I can't think of any social media algo that's public.
- js2 2y ago
  The paranoid part: "there now exists a cabal of moderator/admins with their thumbs on the scale, and their personal predilections are the primary steering force." What exactly does Gruber think this cabal has against him? He's not that important. The stuff he writes in the grand scheme of things isn't all that interesting. It's a niche within a niche. There's not really even all that much to comment on about his posts, frankly. They are opinion pieces. Comments on opinions pieces usually take the form of flame wars or are simply too uninteresting to have much to say about. Same for the other bloggers he mentioned who think they are also being downweighted. I don't agree his "something rotten" post was worthy of #1. After I read it (independently of HN), I sorta nodded along but never thought to submit it here. There's only 28 comments on it, none very interesting; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43348891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43348891 It only got 176 upvotes. That said, it's clearly lower than other submissions from that day, ending in the 88th position. I can't find any lower ranked submission with even close to that score: https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2025-03-13&p=3 https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2025-03-13&p=3 Also, geez, people sure do spam his posts to this site: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=daringfireball.net https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=daringfireball.net So maybe it does get down weighted due to all the repeated submissions.
philistine 2y ago
Gruber's There is something rotten in the State of Cupertino is one of the most excoriating Apple take in years, in large part because it comes from Gruber. Why was this not front page !?
- xcrunner529 2y ago
  And has been around everywhere else. It's not even defensible. Something is rotten in Hacker News too and unfortunately for the cabal, Gruber wrote a very popular article that shined light into their back room dealings. Guarantee you it's more popular than the million "nautil.us" or whatever junk posted here.
adamlett 2y ago
It's also not falsifiable. Dang can disclaim it but Gruber's next step would just be to write "of course dang would say that." If all Dang did was deny, then yeah, it would be quite reasonable to not trust him. But presumably Dang is able to provide a reasonable alternative explanation and has the receipts to back it up.

graeme 2y ago

He cited the mod guidelines, which include: >Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action. It's very plausible to me that there IS a negative site weighting to DF. But that it might come from the aggregate history of flags or angry/contentious comments posted on DF articles. It certainly could be a personal moderator thumb on the scale, but at the scale of HN I'd expect they have some automated formula for site weighting based on the other factors mentioned.

colonel-e-hutz 2y ago

If someone is putting their thumbs on the scale to suppress Gruber’s articles after he posted that Palestinian civilians being subject to war crimes, denied food, water and electricity was "fucking around and finding out"… well good honestly. Suppress this genocide apologist.

CarlitosHighway 2y ago
What genocide?