3 ms·

Shouldn't that be directed to those with an agenda who and are flagging certain posts? Those of us who complain about this highly targeted flagging just want t

Shouldn't that be directed to those with an agenda who and are flagging certain posts? Those of us who complain about this highly targeted flagging just want to avoid censorship. I can't see how we need to reflect on this.

dpkirchner 2y ago
Forums like this are "censored" and that's a really good thing. We don't need a steady stream of (for example) hate for women, minorities, and trans people that you see on truly uncensored forums.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  I agree, but when that is abused because of a minorities' preference, then it's bad. That's what's happening here.
  - dpkirchner 2y ago
    I think we need to get specific -- what preferences are you referring to, and who is the minority? EcommerceFlow mentioned opinions that are "very normal nationally." I don't want to assume the worst so I'm trying not to read in to that.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I mean, I don’t generally like to go over somebody’s posting history because it feels like stupid very-online silliness, but they brought it up. I see some unflagged center-right political opinions sometimes. It is stuff that a mainstream democrat would probably disagree with but find, like, not odious or offensive. Therefore I think they are just getting flagged because any political opinions here have a chance of getting flagged. This is how the website is supposed to work, if we as a community decided that mainstream political opinions were ok, the site would become a place to argue about what exactly is considered mainstream.
- cbeach 2y ago
  All illegal speech should be hidden from public discussion. However, it would be disconcerting if stating biological facts led to censorship on a forum that focusses on science and technology. The definition of "hate" has been stretched a lot over the last few years, and if that restricts discussion of facts and ideas, then it is harmful.
  - Zak 2y ago
    "Stating biological facts" is code for an opinion about how society should view trans people, which is off-topic for HN.
    - cbeach 2y ago
      If stating certain facts is made illegal (by our democratically-elected representatives) then by all means HN will need to censor those facts for the sake of its own self-preservation. But until then, we should be free to state facts. > The old adage “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it” was once a touchstone of liberal society. Having been involved for most of my adult life in areas of social debate, it was a phrase I once commonly heard. Not any more. > Instead, public discourse is marked by efforts to find offence, destroy the character of opponents or ensure reason is smothered by emotional manipulation. > -- John Deighan https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/banning-those-with-different-opinions-harms-democracy-0lv5kp0fn https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/banning-those-w...
      - fwip 2y ago
        "Stating facts" does not mean you are following the other rules of the site. For example, if you irrelevantly post "My software is on sale now for 10% off and here is the link!" on every story, everything in it is factual, but it's spam regardless. I'm sure your specific facts that you want to post are in service of a particular social or political viewpoint you are trying to push, one that the people flagging find either off-topic or odious. And, given that you refuse to elaborate on what specific facts you think are banned, reveals that you think you only can convince people by being vague about what specifically you mean.
- fwip 2y ago
  This is correct. For the people who disagree, go read Slashdot at -1 for a while. Then pretend that you're one of the people who are targeted by that vitriol, and think about how much you'd read the HN comments if they were like that.
bee_rider 2y ago
They are flagging posts that they see as pushing an agenda. There isn’t some official separation of agenda-less and agenda-full ideas.
- cbeach 2y ago
  Posts that break guidelines should be flagged, and the bar should be pretty high. I don't think there is a guideline that bans posts from "pushing an agenda" (which would be very subjective)
  - Teever 2y ago
    How do you feel about flags being public?
    - cbeach 2y ago
      That would be very positive IMO. It would expose bad actors. However, the bar for creating new accounts is low, so bad actors could create lots of accounts cheaply and use them for flagging. That's why I think flagging needs to be a privilege that requires a high user "trust level" - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43559629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43559629
  - dpifke 2y ago
    From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." "Agendas" are often ideological battlegrounds. I flag comments, even those I agree with, that I recognize from experience are going to lead to the same tired, off-topic debates and flame wars. Lately, I've also been maintaining a personal uBlock Origin filter list to hide certain prolific rule breakers. I would love if HN had an equivalent built-in "killfile"[0] functionality for auto-hiding submissions and comments. (This has been suggested to the admins, and was seemingly received favorably, but I'm sure it's a matter of resources.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
  - 2y ago

dpkirchner 2y ago

Forums like this are "censored" and that's a really good thing. We don't need a steady stream of (for example) hate for women, minorities, and trans people that you see on truly uncensored forums.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
I agree, but when that is abused because of a minorities' preference, then it's bad. That's what's happening here.
- dpkirchner 2y ago
  I think we need to get specific -- what preferences are you referring to, and who is the minority? EcommerceFlow mentioned opinions that are "very normal nationally." I don't want to assume the worst so I'm trying not to read in to that.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I mean, I don’t generally like to go over somebody’s posting history because it feels like stupid very-online silliness, but they brought it up. I see some unflagged center-right political opinions sometimes. It is stuff that a mainstream democrat would probably disagree with but find, like, not odious or offensive. Therefore I think they are just getting flagged because any political opinions here have a chance of getting flagged. This is how the website is supposed to work, if we as a community decided that mainstream political opinions were ok, the site would become a place to argue about what exactly is considered mainstream.
cbeach 2y ago
All illegal speech should be hidden from public discussion. However, it would be disconcerting if stating biological facts led to censorship on a forum that focusses on science and technology. The definition of "hate" has been stretched a lot over the last few years, and if that restricts discussion of facts and ideas, then it is harmful.
- Zak 2y ago
  "Stating biological facts" is code for an opinion about how society should view trans people, which is off-topic for HN.
  - cbeach 2y ago
    If stating certain facts is made illegal (by our democratically-elected representatives) then by all means HN will need to censor those facts for the sake of its own self-preservation. But until then, we should be free to state facts. > The old adage “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it” was once a touchstone of liberal society. Having been involved for most of my adult life in areas of social debate, it was a phrase I once commonly heard. Not any more. > Instead, public discourse is marked by efforts to find offence, destroy the character of opponents or ensure reason is smothered by emotional manipulation. > -- John Deighan https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/banning-those-with-different-opinions-harms-democracy-0lv5kp0fn https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/banning-those-w...
    - fwip 2y ago
      "Stating facts" does not mean you are following the other rules of the site. For example, if you irrelevantly post "My software is on sale now for 10% off and here is the link!" on every story, everything in it is factual, but it's spam regardless. I'm sure your specific facts that you want to post are in service of a particular social or political viewpoint you are trying to push, one that the people flagging find either off-topic or odious. And, given that you refuse to elaborate on what specific facts you think are banned, reveals that you think you only can convince people by being vague about what specifically you mean.
fwip 2y ago
This is correct. For the people who disagree, go read Slashdot at -1 for a while. Then pretend that you're one of the people who are targeted by that vitriol, and think about how much you'd read the HN comments if they were like that.

bee_rider 2y ago

They are flagging posts that they see as pushing an agenda. There isn’t some official separation of agenda-less and agenda-full ideas.

cbeach 2y ago
Posts that break guidelines should be flagged, and the bar should be pretty high. I don't think there is a guideline that bans posts from "pushing an agenda" (which would be very subjective)
- Teever 2y ago
  How do you feel about flags being public?
  - cbeach 2y ago
    That would be very positive IMO. It would expose bad actors. However, the bar for creating new accounts is low, so bad actors could create lots of accounts cheaply and use them for flagging. That's why I think flagging needs to be a privilege that requires a high user "trust level" - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43559629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43559629
- dpifke 2y ago
  From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." "Agendas" are often ideological battlegrounds. I flag comments, even those I agree with, that I recognize from experience are going to lead to the same tired, off-topic debates and flame wars. Lately, I've also been maintaining a personal uBlock Origin filter list to hide certain prolific rule breakers. I would love if HN had an equivalent built-in "killfile"[0] functionality for auto-hiding submissions and comments. (This has been suggested to the admins, and was seemingly received favorably, but I'm sure it's a matter of resources.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
- 2y ago