2 ms·
The key to getting positive insights out of controversial topics is to raise quality of the discussions rather than to censor them. My instinct was to agree wi
by mdakin 19y ago
The key to getting positive insights out of controversial topics is to raise quality of the discussions rather than to censor them. My instinct was to agree with epi0Bauqu but one of the few stories I've upvoted after reading in the past day concerned both religion and politics [1]. This contradiction had been bothering me. But the situation is much more clear to me now.
An important goal for a community like this is to minimize or eliminate low quality, frustrating patterns of discussion. One can eliminate such patterns by censoring the topics that often lead to the discussions or by changing the culture of the group so that the problematic discussions are minimized.
The posting of libertarian/socialist/etc. aphorisms under the guise of an economic discussion should be discouraged. A relevant aspect of economics is that most interesting economic discussions rely on mathematics or at least a qualitative reference to a mathematical argument. If an intense economic discussion lacks such references it is almost certainly a low quality discussion.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44184 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44184
- davidw 19y agoIt's not 'censorship', it' focus, although once we lost that, it becomes harder to say "this doesn't belong". The problem is that initial results point to low quality discussions. Let me see if I can reference some: - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44201 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44201 - acting on global warming likened to communism, voted up - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43822 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43822 - random conjecture about political parties, voted up - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43891 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43891 sensationalist take (criminalizing information! plutocrats!) on admittedly problematic aspects of our society, voted up. This one's not so bad, but it still sets my hyperbole detector off. - Random knee jerk libertarianism on other threads. And those were ones that I noticed, that had been voted up. There have been more that thankfully have not been voted up.
- epi0Bauqu 19y agoHeh, I actually agree with your basic premise that it is better to make detailed and incremental tweaks than use the blunt instrument of wholesale censorship. This whole argument is somewhat ironic too because I like policy discussions and at least once enjoyed religious ones. (After all, I went out and earned a masters degree in Technology & Policy on my own volition and have written religious articles.) What it comes down to for me, is that I am just heavily skeptical that raising the quality of these discussions to an acceptably interesting level in a relatively open online forum can be done, and so I have been advocating censorship instead. I hope I am wrong.
- mdakin 19y agoI think the key to making this work without censorship is ruthless downmoderation of low quality, uninterrsting, and annoying discussions. I am often hesitant to downmod but this is the tool that we have to shape the culture. If enough of us who care about having nondogmatic discussions start downmodding the situation might take care of itself.