3 ms·
How do you know who flags submissions?
by jaredklewis 1y ago
How do you know who flags submissions?
- camillomiller 1y agoi don’t, but I know certain users have a strong flagging penchant. check my recent submission, the vitriol it received, and read this https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/03/27/youll-never-guess-which-recent-df-article-was-flagged-at-hacker-news https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/03/27/youll-never-gue...
- intended 1y agoYour submission was earnest, but it’s also impossible to answer fairly, because your framing is not neutral. Many people will argue that they do good at Meta, and that they strive to do good. Their results probably are good too - meta is vast so statistically you will find good work and good outcomes. Those people are already painted as evil, so why would they engage with the question ? Even if you are genuine and earnest?
- do_not_redeem 1y agoThe actual data does not support Gruber's perception. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43494735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43494735
- jakeydus 1y agoCalling the comments on the meta post ‘vitriol’ is a bit on the hyperbolic side don’t you think?
- camillomiller 1y agoLuckily they are not the top comments, but there were some of the nastiest I’ve seen allowed on here. Some users went as far as creating throwaway accounts to post nasty comments. It never ever happened to me on HN, and it’s a Reddit-level toxicity that I’ve never seen displayed here. Clearly my post struck a nerve.
- zahlman 1y agoYour recent submission in my view absolutely merits flagging, because it's about booing a company you don't like and doesn't come across as charitable or asked in good faith. And I agree with jakeydus: I'm not seeing anything I could call "vitriol" in the top-level comments. I do, however, see people resent having their way of life (and of making a living) called into question. The one particularly snide top-level comment I saw was agreeing with you.
- camillomiller 1y agoLook, if criticizing Meta because they enabled genocide in Myanmar and induce depression in teenage girls (as per their own admission) is booing, I don’t know what to say. The question was clear: Meta has been proven beyond doubt to be a company led by people who couldn’t care less about their impact on society. Therefore, here’s the question, what makes you still work for them apart from money, if you have any sliver of ethics.
- zahlman 1y agoMy comment was not an invitation for you to continue the same ideological warring here.
- camillomiller 1y agoDid you read my comment, instead of framing it as ideological? Such a framing is a quite interesting way to dismiss the issue at hand isn't it? Do you share the aknowledged reality that Meta has fostered genocide in Myanmar, as per their own admission in front of Congress, and that Instagram has led teenage girls to depression, as per admitted by internal documents seen in discovery that prove how they weaponized those same mechanisms? If YES, why do you think Meta is a normal company, with regular "contradictions", and why do you frame as ideological someone who just reminds people of what Meta and Zuckerberg do? If NO, how exactly do you justify your answer that negates what we know for a fact, and/or how do you justify Meta's behavior?
- 1y ago
- reaperducer 1y agoHow do you know who flags submissions? I have seen people on HN publicly state that they flag anything they don't agree with, regardless of merit. I guess they use it like some kind of super-down button.