5 ms·

What are you planning to do about the abuse of the flagging system that has been a huge problem now for some time? It’s very clearly broken and used by a small

by mdhb 1y ago

What are you planning to do about the abuse of the flagging system that has been a huge problem now for some time? It’s very clearly broken and used by a small reactionary minority to control what everyone else is allowed to read and discuss? You can’t tell me with a straight faith that things are working as intended.

tomhow 1y ago
From your submissions and comments it seems you want HN to be something different to what it’s intended to be. Then you take it out on us with these kinds of comments that are full of false characterizations like “a small reactionary minority” and barbs like “you can’t tell me with a straight face”. We look at flagged items and determine if they were reasonable given the guidelines. Plenty of people email us to share their thoughts about whether particular stories should be unflagged, and we’re happy to consider reasoned arguments about this. But if you want HN to be different from what it’s intended to be, you’ll always be frustrated with how we moderate it.
- mdhb 1y ago
  I think that is actually a key part of the issue. It seems by all accounts that you seem to think that things are going great and are happy to deny there is any problem to even begin with which very much feels like gaslighting. There is a huge amount of evidence now to suggest that the moderating is wildly out of step with the majority opinion on a continuous basis and when asked about it the response is simply to imply it’s a problem with me personally which I know full well not to be true by the fact that certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion and there has never been a single public action that I could point to that would even begin to acknowledge that there is indeed a small reactionary minority who flag things in ways that have zero resemblance to the stated rules. People will loudly and proudly on a regular basis talk about how they blindly flag anything that meets their own personal criteria when they could have instead used the hide link just as easily. There IS a problem here with a small minority of people who continually make decisions on what OTHERS can read, it’s clear as day, you just don’t want to be honest about that fact.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    You don't need to keep making these accusations of dishonesty and "gaslighting" by us. You just need to look at our incentives. HN can only continue to exist if we keep the site interesting to the majority of users. A small contingent of users keeps making the same complaint about the flagging of a category of posts, and their activity indicates they want HN to be different from what it is intended to be. > certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion The role of HN is not to cater to "popular opinion". We very specifically exist to surface projects/topics and host discussions that aren't happening elsewhere. You keep insisting that it's a "small reactionary minority" suppressing these stories. We know that's not what it is; it's users who understand HN's purpose and want it to focus on what it's intended to be: a site that engages curiosity rather than stirring up rage. We know that political topics are important, and we do make space for them when there is "significant new information", which, despite these complaints, still ends up being multiple times per week. And we get roughly equal complaints from people that there is too little politics and too much. You're most welcome to do what others do and email us when there's a story that you sincerely believe is good content for HN, given the guidelines, and we're happy to discuss it and explain our thoughts about it.
    - mdhb 1y ago
      This whole argument is just so disjointed I don’t know where to start other than to once again say that I very much understand that in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should be but if you’re trying to make the argument that that is the same thing as the rules are written I would disagree. But in this same post you’ve said: 1. HN needs to be interesting to the MAJORITY of users. 2. HN is not designed to serve MAJORITY opinion. 3. There is no MINORITY of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons 4. There is however a MINORITY of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening. You won’t even admit that there is a potential problem here that there exists a group of people who flag things entirely on ideological grounds with zero bearing on the rules as they are written. I understand that you’re a moderator here and I’m not but I think you’re doing a bad job and being either dishonest or intentionally obtuse here. At no point did I ever get the impression there was even the slightest sense of curiosity from the moderation team no matter how many times it was mentioned. It’s always the same reply, things are going exactly as we want them to and you’re crazy to suggest otherwise.

by mdhb 1y ago

tomhow 1y ago

From your submissions and comments it seems you want HN to be something different to what it’s intended to be. Then you take it out on us with these kinds of comments that are full of false characterizations like “a small reactionary minority” and barbs like “you can’t tell me with a straight face”. We look at flagged items and determine if they were reasonable given the guidelines. Plenty of people email us to share their thoughts about whether particular stories should be unflagged, and we’re happy to consider reasoned arguments about this. But if you want HN to be different from what it’s intended to be, you’ll always be frustrated with how we moderate it.

mdhb 1y ago
I think that is actually a key part of the issue. It seems by all accounts that you seem to think that things are going great and are happy to deny there is any problem to even begin with which very much feels like gaslighting. There is a huge amount of evidence now to suggest that the moderating is wildly out of step with the majority opinion on a continuous basis and when asked about it the response is simply to imply it’s a problem with me personally which I know full well not to be true by the fact that certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion and there has never been a single public action that I could point to that would even begin to acknowledge that there is indeed a small reactionary minority who flag things in ways that have zero resemblance to the stated rules. People will loudly and proudly on a regular basis talk about how they blindly flag anything that meets their own personal criteria when they could have instead used the hide link just as easily. There IS a problem here with a small minority of people who continually make decisions on what OTHERS can read, it’s clear as day, you just don’t want to be honest about that fact.
- tomhow 1y ago
  You don't need to keep making these accusations of dishonesty and "gaslighting" by us. You just need to look at our incentives. HN can only continue to exist if we keep the site interesting to the majority of users. A small contingent of users keeps making the same complaint about the flagging of a category of posts, and their activity indicates they want HN to be different from what it is intended to be. > certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion The role of HN is not to cater to "popular opinion". We very specifically exist to surface projects/topics and host discussions that aren't happening elsewhere. You keep insisting that it's a "small reactionary minority" suppressing these stories. We know that's not what it is; it's users who understand HN's purpose and want it to focus on what it's intended to be: a site that engages curiosity rather than stirring up rage. We know that political topics are important, and we do make space for them when there is "significant new information", which, despite these complaints, still ends up being multiple times per week. And we get roughly equal complaints from people that there is too little politics and too much. You're most welcome to do what others do and email us when there's a story that you sincerely believe is good content for HN, given the guidelines, and we're happy to discuss it and explain our thoughts about it.
  - mdhb 1y ago
    This whole argument is just so disjointed I don’t know where to start other than to once again say that I very much understand that in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should be but if you’re trying to make the argument that that is the same thing as the rules are written I would disagree. But in this same post you’ve said: 1. HN needs to be interesting to the MAJORITY of users. 2. HN is not designed to serve MAJORITY opinion. 3. There is no MINORITY of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons 4. There is however a MINORITY of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening. You won’t even admit that there is a potential problem here that there exists a group of people who flag things entirely on ideological grounds with zero bearing on the rules as they are written. I understand that you’re a moderator here and I’m not but I think you’re doing a bad job and being either dishonest or intentionally obtuse here. At no point did I ever get the impression there was even the slightest sense of curiosity from the moderation team no matter how many times it was mentioned. It’s always the same reply, things are going exactly as we want them to and you’re crazy to suggest otherwise.