4 ms·

From what I understand it's not the editors, but rather the HN community (and possibly bots) who engage in this (egregious) flagging behavior. I happens almost

From what I understand it's not the editors, but rather the HN community (and possibly bots) who engage in this (egregious) flagging behavior. I happens almost daily for anything critical of the current US administration, including posts about Elon. Even posts from reputable news sources like Wired get flagged if they are even remotely critical of the tech oligarchs.

123yawaworht456 1y ago
there is, almost at any given time, a designated thread with a two minutes hate about the musky man.
tomhow 1y ago
An article titled "[name] is a traitor" is not a good article for HN, no matter who it's about, as it's flamebait. Flagging bots and users who flag inappropriately don't have much effect here. We review flagged posts, and for any account that is flagging inappropriately, their flags get switched off. Almost every day the accusation is made that anything critical of the U.S. administration or tech celebrities is censored here. And the response is always the same. This stuff gets flagged, correctly, by users who want HN to stay true to its intended purpose, which is to discuss topics that engage intellectual curiosity. The day-to-day posts criticizing the U.S. administration or tech celebrities normally don't fit this category, because they generally say the same thing as the version was posted the day before, and the comments in the discussions also say largely the same things. Still, we frequently turn off flags on politics-related posts, or indeed posts about tech celebrities, when they contain "significant new information" and can sustain a discussion thread that contains new ideas in the comments. The users who keep complaining that these stories are censored are users who seem to want HN to be something other than what it has always been intended to be.
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  Is there any sense that your view of what HN "has always intended to be" needs to be updated in the face of changing relationships between tech and politics? Any reflection on the role this moderation policy has had on the broader world outside of tech? I regularly see positively rated HN comments that are indistinguishable from stormfront posts 20 years ago. The main stream of tech leadership is directly involved in eliminationist & unconstitutional policies in the US and elsewhere, and uses their authority and influence within the tech industry to promote these racist political platforms. Any reflection on how HN's moderation policy has allowed them to do so, the impact it has had in providing such fertile ground for them to work in? It seems that what HN was "always intended to be" has turned out to be an effective propaganda tool for one of the most destructive political movements in living memory. I wouldn't feel good about staying the course here.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    > I regularly see positively rated HN comments that are indistinguishable from stormfront posts 20 years ago. This is the kind of comment that is only ever made without links that would enable the claim to be evaluated by others. And the rest of the comment that seems to assert that the political craziness in the world is the fault of HN is pretty wild, but is perhaps an assumption that explains why some people think this is an important place to conduct ideological battle. We’re a tiny site in the scheme of things. None of the tech leaders who are influential in politics have been active or popular on HN for years, if ever. The HN audience has always been distrustful of big tech and the relationship between corporations and politics. The core HN audience is people who work in tech (mostly employees or freelancers) who are interested learning new things and like to work on interesting projects. We know we are not - and cannot be - a bubble that’s isolated from the rest of the world. But it’s a mistake to think that HN has any significant influence on politics or the tech leaders who are active in politics.
    - giraffe_lady 1y ago
      I am suggesting HN change its moderation policies in light of having been inadvertently and effectively used for far right propaganda and your rebuttal is along the lines of "no, because it wasn't effective." Do I have that right or would you like to clarify? It seems like my position is that I believe HN has a greater reach and impact than the editorial team of HN itself does? Here are a few comment examples that it took me not very much time or effort to find. I hope seeing them changes your mind somewhat. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39359199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39359199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41697845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41697845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39823820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39823820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39749415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39749415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40311057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40311057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41658850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41658850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39280659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39280659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38210959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38210959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36269058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36269058
- josefresco 1y ago
  > This stuff gets flagged, correctly, by users who want HN to stay true to its intended purpose, which is to discuss topics that engage intellectual curiosity. I respectfully disagree with your claim that these posts are flagged "correctly". Many of these posts, while related to politics or current news cover highly technical and intellectually intriguing topics. I think it's pretty disingenuous to say these users are acting genuinely in the best interest of the community. To make matters worse, reputable media outlets like 404 Media who publish highly relevant but critical articles are autoflagged. The reason given "because they have paywall" which is 100% BS.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    You’re always welcome to email us to point out an article that has that potential to sustain a high quality discussion. These things are often best judged by their consequences. If the thread if full of repetitive ideological rhetoric, it’s not good for HN. If it has plenty of interesting new ideas, then it belongs here and we’ll happily give it the exposure the community wants. Either way, we’re answerable to the community.

123yawaworht456 1y ago

there is, almost at any given time, a designated thread with a two minutes hate about the musky man.

tomhow 1y ago

An article titled "[name] is a traitor" is not a good article for HN, no matter who it's about, as it's flamebait. Flagging bots and users who flag inappropriately don't have much effect here. We review flagged posts, and for any account that is flagging inappropriately, their flags get switched off. Almost every day the accusation is made that anything critical of the U.S. administration or tech celebrities is censored here. And the response is always the same. This stuff gets flagged, correctly, by users who want HN to stay true to its intended purpose, which is to discuss topics that engage intellectual curiosity. The day-to-day posts criticizing the U.S. administration or tech celebrities normally don't fit this category, because they generally say the same thing as the version was posted the day before, and the comments in the discussions also say largely the same things. Still, we frequently turn off flags on politics-related posts, or indeed posts about tech celebrities, when they contain "significant new information" and can sustain a discussion thread that contains new ideas in the comments. The users who keep complaining that these stories are censored are users who seem to want HN to be something other than what it has always been intended to be.

giraffe_lady 1y ago
Is there any sense that your view of what HN "has always intended to be" needs to be updated in the face of changing relationships between tech and politics? Any reflection on the role this moderation policy has had on the broader world outside of tech? I regularly see positively rated HN comments that are indistinguishable from stormfront posts 20 years ago. The main stream of tech leadership is directly involved in eliminationist & unconstitutional policies in the US and elsewhere, and uses their authority and influence within the tech industry to promote these racist political platforms. Any reflection on how HN's moderation policy has allowed them to do so, the impact it has had in providing such fertile ground for them to work in? It seems that what HN was "always intended to be" has turned out to be an effective propaganda tool for one of the most destructive political movements in living memory. I wouldn't feel good about staying the course here.
- tomhow 1y ago
  > I regularly see positively rated HN comments that are indistinguishable from stormfront posts 20 years ago. This is the kind of comment that is only ever made without links that would enable the claim to be evaluated by others. And the rest of the comment that seems to assert that the political craziness in the world is the fault of HN is pretty wild, but is perhaps an assumption that explains why some people think this is an important place to conduct ideological battle. We’re a tiny site in the scheme of things. None of the tech leaders who are influential in politics have been active or popular on HN for years, if ever. The HN audience has always been distrustful of big tech and the relationship between corporations and politics. The core HN audience is people who work in tech (mostly employees or freelancers) who are interested learning new things and like to work on interesting projects. We know we are not - and cannot be - a bubble that’s isolated from the rest of the world. But it’s a mistake to think that HN has any significant influence on politics or the tech leaders who are active in politics.
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    I am suggesting HN change its moderation policies in light of having been inadvertently and effectively used for far right propaganda and your rebuttal is along the lines of "no, because it wasn't effective." Do I have that right or would you like to clarify? It seems like my position is that I believe HN has a greater reach and impact than the editorial team of HN itself does? Here are a few comment examples that it took me not very much time or effort to find. I hope seeing them changes your mind somewhat. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39359199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39359199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41697845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41697845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39823820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39823820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39749415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39749415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40311057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40311057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41658850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41658850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39280659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39280659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38210959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38210959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36269058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36269058
josefresco 1y ago
> This stuff gets flagged, correctly, by users who want HN to stay true to its intended purpose, which is to discuss topics that engage intellectual curiosity. I respectfully disagree with your claim that these posts are flagged "correctly". Many of these posts, while related to politics or current news cover highly technical and intellectually intriguing topics. I think it's pretty disingenuous to say these users are acting genuinely in the best interest of the community. To make matters worse, reputable media outlets like 404 Media who publish highly relevant but critical articles are autoflagged. The reason given "because they have paywall" which is 100% BS.
- tomhow 1y ago
  You’re always welcome to email us to point out an article that has that potential to sustain a high quality discussion. These things are often best judged by their consequences. If the thread if full of repetitive ideological rhetoric, it’s not good for HN. If it has plenty of interesting new ideas, then it belongs here and we’ll happily give it the exposure the community wants. Either way, we’re answerable to the community.