3 ms·

That comment was posted barely a half hour ago and nobody has flagged it yet. What does it have to with "double standard moderation practices that are left unmo

by tomhow 1y ago

That comment was posted barely a half hour ago and nobody has flagged it yet. What does it have to with "double standard moderation practices that are left unmoderated and even praised?" We can't act on things that the community doesn't tell us about. Almost always, when people point to comments that are egregious but still live as evidence that the moderators approve of them, the reality is that we didn't see them. And a major reason for that is that political flamewar is now such a big part the activity on HN that our small team can't ever see all the comments that are flagged. But please don't try to use other people's transgressions as an excuse for your own. That's an age-old trick that doesn't work well here. If you are sincere about being a positive contributor to this community, you can easily show that by making an effort to observe the guidelines. You could also make good-faith efforts to hold other community members to high standards by flagging comments, and if you see anything that's particularly egregious, emailing us. Edit: you added to your comment after I submitted mine, so I'll add a further response. We don't care about what side you're arguing for. Often we don't know; we don't have time to figure out what each commentator in a flamewar is on about. The topic of bias has been hurled at HN for as long as it's existed. Dan has an ever-growing list of the complaints we get from each side characterising us as being biased towards the other side [1]. We have guidelines for a reason, which is that if people fill their comments with inflammatory rhetoric, the emotional energy that triggers is what dominates people's perception of the discussion, rather than the substance of the points people are trying to get across. If you have points to make that have substance, and I know that you do, you need to find a way to get them across without being inflammatory, otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>nobody has flagged it yet[..]We can't act on things that the community doesn't tell us about. Why do you think that is? Is it not a reflection of the userbase bias? Where comments get flagged not based on rules but based on which political side they are targeting? >You could also make good-faith efforts to hold other community members to high standards by flagging comments Doesn't help when others vouch for them to support their ideology. >We don't care about what side you're arguing for. You don't, but your userbase does. And your moderation is based on what your userbase flags. So you moderation 100% reflects the bias of the community, hence the biased enforcement of your rules. Answer me why is my comment here is flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tomhow 1y ago
  > Why do you think that is? Is it not a reflection of the userbase bias? Where comments get flagged not based on rules but based on which political side they are targeting? That comment was a breach of the guidelines but it almost always takes longer than half an hour for a comment to be flagged, and for us to see it, especially on a thread that's over a day old that barely anybody is looking at anymore. You could flag it yourself. The fact that you didn't makes it seem more like you're trying to prove a point about bias rather than doing your part to support the health of the community. > Doesn't help when others vouch for them to support their ideology. People who abuse vouching privileges can have those privileges revoked – if we know about it. Again, when you see this, email us. The site has all kinds of mechanisms and norms to prevent abuse and dysfunction, but they can only work if people are sincere about making the site better rather than being at war with it. Edit: Adding this in reply to your addition: > Answer me why is my comment here is flagged? > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839 These parts break the guidelines against assuming bad faith and fulminating: Bad faith argument. I've mostly seen change for the sake of change, wrapped in fluffy artsy BS jargon, making it sound like each UI change is the second coming of Christ and fixes world hunger. They're not especially egregious but when you develop a reputation for breaking the guidelines, your comments are going to attract more flags, and also trigger more complaints made privately to us via email. We received emails complaining about your comments, including this one, from people who have a good track record of supporting the community and not being politically partisan. When we receive these kinds of complaints, nobody is complaining about your politics, just about your inflammatory style and guidelines breaches.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >The fact that you didn't Mate, I don't have time to flag all comments that I find inflammatory, especially when I flagged many comments in the past and nothing happened to them, so what's the point? I flagged this one after and the comment was still there. So why are you throwing the blame on me? Why didn't you remove that comment after I pointed it out? > Again, when you see this, email us. Mate please, be serious, me and most normal people have better things to do with our time than go full Karen "I want to talk to the manager" mode, and go to such lengths like emailing HN mods about other peoples' comments. Downvotes and flags are enough for me. The fact that there are people here who have the time to send you emails about my comments that don't break the rules, just because they're butthurt, says something about those users (unemployed, terminally online, mentally unstable on SSRIs, social and politically activists, etc). Normal, employed people with healthy social lives don't send mod emails about comments they don't like on internet. WTH? >These parts break the guidelines against assuming bad faith Then by that yardstick, isn't the comment I was replying too also in bad faith, just like I pointed out initially? Since he was using Android 2 to justify that Android 16 is the superior UI. And I replied that's in bad faith since the alternative to Android 16 shitty UI is not going back to Android 2 to make Android 16 look good, but version 10 is a good counter to that of why version 16 is bad. How is my comment in bad faith and that one not? >fulminating Why was it fulminating? Was it any more than the rest of comments everyone on HN? That was just criticism of Android's UI evolution. Since when is criticism of something with arguments considered "fulminating"? Please explain, I'm genuinely curious. Because otherwise this so called rule break of mine in this case feels blatantly discriminatory and double standards. >you're going to get more flags, and complaints made about you Bro, you're straight up admitting to biased moderation here. That the community doing the flagging cares more about WHO is saying something rather than WHAT is being said. How can you talk about free speech and fair moderation with a straight face in this case? Please, answer me these questions.

by tomhow 1y ago

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

>nobody has flagged it yet[..]We can't act on things that the community doesn't tell us about. Why do you think that is? Is it not a reflection of the userbase bias? Where comments get flagged not based on rules but based on which political side they are targeting? >You could also make good-faith efforts to hold other community members to high standards by flagging comments Doesn't help when others vouch for them to support their ideology. >We don't care about what side you're arguing for. You don't, but your userbase does. And your moderation is based on what your userbase flags. So you moderation 100% reflects the bias of the community, hence the biased enforcement of your rules. Answer me why is my comment here is flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tomhow 1y ago
> Why do you think that is? Is it not a reflection of the userbase bias? Where comments get flagged not based on rules but based on which political side they are targeting? That comment was a breach of the guidelines but it almost always takes longer than half an hour for a comment to be flagged, and for us to see it, especially on a thread that's over a day old that barely anybody is looking at anymore. You could flag it yourself. The fact that you didn't makes it seem more like you're trying to prove a point about bias rather than doing your part to support the health of the community. > Doesn't help when others vouch for them to support their ideology. People who abuse vouching privileges can have those privileges revoked – if we know about it. Again, when you see this, email us. The site has all kinds of mechanisms and norms to prevent abuse and dysfunction, but they can only work if people are sincere about making the site better rather than being at war with it. Edit: Adding this in reply to your addition: > Answer me why is my comment here is flagged? > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44240839 These parts break the guidelines against assuming bad faith and fulminating: Bad faith argument. I've mostly seen change for the sake of change, wrapped in fluffy artsy BS jargon, making it sound like each UI change is the second coming of Christ and fixes world hunger. They're not especially egregious but when you develop a reputation for breaking the guidelines, your comments are going to attract more flags, and also trigger more complaints made privately to us via email. We received emails complaining about your comments, including this one, from people who have a good track record of supporting the community and not being politically partisan. When we receive these kinds of complaints, nobody is complaining about your politics, just about your inflammatory style and guidelines breaches.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >The fact that you didn't Mate, I don't have time to flag all comments that I find inflammatory, especially when I flagged many comments in the past and nothing happened to them, so what's the point? I flagged this one after and the comment was still there. So why are you throwing the blame on me? Why didn't you remove that comment after I pointed it out? > Again, when you see this, email us. Mate please, be serious, me and most normal people have better things to do with our time than go full Karen "I want to talk to the manager" mode, and go to such lengths like emailing HN mods about other peoples' comments. Downvotes and flags are enough for me. The fact that there are people here who have the time to send you emails about my comments that don't break the rules, just because they're butthurt, says something about those users (unemployed, terminally online, mentally unstable on SSRIs, social and politically activists, etc). Normal, employed people with healthy social lives don't send mod emails about comments they don't like on internet. WTH? >These parts break the guidelines against assuming bad faith Then by that yardstick, isn't the comment I was replying too also in bad faith, just like I pointed out initially? Since he was using Android 2 to justify that Android 16 is the superior UI. And I replied that's in bad faith since the alternative to Android 16 shitty UI is not going back to Android 2 to make Android 16 look good, but version 10 is a good counter to that of why version 16 is bad. How is my comment in bad faith and that one not? >fulminating Why was it fulminating? Was it any more than the rest of comments everyone on HN? That was just criticism of Android's UI evolution. Since when is criticism of something with arguments considered "fulminating"? Please explain, I'm genuinely curious. Because otherwise this so called rule break of mine in this case feels blatantly discriminatory and double standards. >you're going to get more flags, and complaints made about you Bro, you're straight up admitting to biased moderation here. That the community doing the flagging cares more about WHO is saying something rather than WHAT is being said. How can you talk about free speech and fair moderation with a straight face in this case? Please, answer me these questions.