4 ms·

As dang said, > what it proves is that users will flag unsubstantive flamewar posts on Hacker News, regardless of the topic or the commenter's position on the

As dang said, > what it proves is that users will flag unsubstantive flamewar posts on Hacker News, regardless of the topic or the commenter's position on the topic. This is a good thing! I think it has to pass the moderators bar for acceptance: is this just antoher "MOT", or will it generate "curious" discussion. Combine that with the fact that the HN site gets a lot of these submissions and it's sort of a phenomenon that I like to call "no one goes there, it's too crowded!".

chimpanzee 1y ago
"Curious" discussion requires a free and open society and a sense of personal security. If that doesn't exist, then no one will dare make statements online that could result in persecution in the real. If they want to protect curious discussion, then they need to protect the society that fosters it. But again...they are free to make public statements denouncing what is happening without having to interfere in the moderation. Yet they have not done so. Why not? Instead, what do they ask for?...For people to "make good new things". But sometimes, obstruction or even destruction is just as "good". One doesn't watch a cancer grow and say "hmmm....what good thing can i create in response?" No. You fucking destroy the cancer. They don't want that though. "Good new things" are profitable. Destruction isn't. (Unless it's the destruction of moral constraints.) And worse yet, destruction will inevitably result in the downfall of some of their very close friends and acquaintances. It's no surprise they aren't saying anything. (I realize your response is neutral, or I at least read it as such, so please don't take my comment as an attack on you.)
johnnyanmac 1y ago
Like it or not, that kind of statement plays right into Trump's playbook. I also simply don't believe it. Because by that logic any AI topic as of late should be flagged as well. People just want to enjoy their circus even as the bombs outside go off.
- computerthings 1y ago
  [dead]

chimpanzee 1y ago

"Curious" discussion requires a free and open society and a sense of personal security. If that doesn't exist, then no one will dare make statements online that could result in persecution in the real. If they want to protect curious discussion, then they need to protect the society that fosters it. But again...they are free to make public statements denouncing what is happening without having to interfere in the moderation. Yet they have not done so. Why not? Instead, what do they ask for?...For people to "make good new things". But sometimes, obstruction or even destruction is just as "good". One doesn't watch a cancer grow and say "hmmm....what good thing can i create in response?" No. You fucking destroy the cancer. They don't want that though. "Good new things" are profitable. Destruction isn't. (Unless it's the destruction of moral constraints.) And worse yet, destruction will inevitably result in the downfall of some of their very close friends and acquaintances. It's no surprise they aren't saying anything. (I realize your response is neutral, or I at least read it as such, so please don't take my comment as an attack on you.)

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Like it or not, that kind of statement plays right into Trump's playbook. I also simply don't believe it. Because by that logic any AI topic as of late should be flagged as well. People just want to enjoy their circus even as the bombs outside go off.

computerthings 1y ago
[dead]