4 ms·

Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things. Perhaps it was the baity title. I've taken the flags off that post now.

by dang 1y ago

garganzol 1y ago
[flagged]
- maratc 1y ago
  > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. (from the guidelines)
  - garganzol 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - goku12 1y ago
    Honestly, the guidelines must also include a clause prohibiting those activities. Sometimes the pattern is overwhelming. But it's prohibited to complain about it. Not an ideal situation. Hope you'll give it a serious thought.
    - dang 1y ago
      Those activities are certainly prohibited. I don't think we don't need a guideline to say that though. The HN guidelines don't list everything that's prohibited. To publish such a list would be to imply that everything not on the list is ok. That would be a big mistake! It would be carte blanche to the entire internet to find loopholes and wreak havoc with them. > Sometimes the pattern is overwhelming. The trouble is that in many cases it feels like such a pattern—and the feeling can be super convincing—yet there turns out to be no evidence for it. Perceptions are awfully unreliable about this. We ask people not to post about these things in the threads, not to imply that actual astroturfing etc. is at all ok, but because unfounded comments about it vastly outnumber well-founded comments. Worse, they have a way of proliferating and taking over the threads. Keep in mind that that guideline doesn't say "please don't post and then do nothing". It says "please don't post, but do email us so we can look into it". We do look into it, and on occasions when we find evidence, we act on it. There just needs to be something objective to go on, and in most cases there isn't. The phenomenon of internet users being far too quick to jump to conclusions about astroturfing, bots, etc., is extremely well established. If there's one phenomenon we've learned about decisively over the years, that's the one. (Well, one of two.) Btw, I've written about this a ton over the years (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). I particularly remember writing these two: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851 (May 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 (June 2021) They're long, but they still hold up as descriptions of these phenomena and the moderation approach we take to them.
goku12 1y ago
Respectfully, there is nothing baity about that title. The body of that article justifies it. XSLT is only about the last third of it.
- dang 1y ago
  These things land differently with different readers, of course, but "Google is killing the open web" does seem pretty baity to me. The combo of grand-claim and something-to-get-mad-about usually is. It doesn't take too large a set of provoked readers to get a large enough set of provoked commenters to bump a thread into flamewar mode.
  - goku12 1y ago
    Please take this as a point of discussion rather than as an argument. That title is something that I and many others would have come up with on our own without needing any provocation. In fact, the exact same thing has been said numerous times independently all over the net. There are so many instances that justify the assertion that you could make a very long list with the relevant HN stories alone. But that isn't the point of this reply. The way I see it, any general or sweeping accusation against an entity may be construed as clickbait or too provocative for HN, even if the content backs it up sufficiently. But at what point are you going to draw the line where you consider the accusations to be credible enough to warrant such a scathing crticism? It's not as if these entities are renowned for their ethical conduct or even basic decency regarding the commons. Heated public lash back is often the only avenue they leave us. Case in point, I hope you remember the stand that the HN crowd took against WEI. Make no mistake, such discussions here don't go unnoticed. The talking points here often influence the public discourse, including by mass media. That's why there is such a fierce fight to control the narrative here. I respect your right to your opinion. But this is essentially a political subject. And there is no getting around the fact that you cannot divorce politics from technology, or from any relevant subject for that matter. If that's considered as flame war, then I guess flame wars are an unavoidable and normal part technical discourse. It isn't personal (and no personal attacks should be involved), but the stakes are high enough for the contestants (often of high monetary nature). Attempts to curb such heated discourse will result in two serious consequences. The first is that you will give one or often both sides (ironically), the impression that HN is a place to amplify certain narratives without a balanced take. Secondly, you'll unintentionally and indirectly influence the outcome outside of HN. From my perspective, that leaves you in an unenviable predicament of such serious decisions. So I implore you to consider these matters as well while taking such decisions. Especially to ensure that your personal biases don't influence what you consider as click and flame baits. From my personal experience, I know that you're putting in the utmost care, diligence and sincerity in those matters. But it's possible that the pressure to avoid controversies, fights and bad blood might have shifted your Overton window too far into the cautious territory over time. Probably a good yard stick is to see if the flamewar is important enough and whether it avoids personal harm (physical and emotional). I hope you'll consider this opinion when you make similar determination in the future. Regards!

Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things. Perhaps it was the baity title. I've taken the flags off that post now.

by dang 1y ago

Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things. Perhaps it was the baity title. I've taken the flags off that post now.

garganzol 1y ago

[flagged]

maratc 1y ago
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. (from the guidelines)
- garganzol 1y ago
  [flagged]
- goku12 1y ago
  Honestly, the guidelines must also include a clause prohibiting those activities. Sometimes the pattern is overwhelming. But it's prohibited to complain about it. Not an ideal situation. Hope you'll give it a serious thought.
  - dang 1y ago
    Those activities are certainly prohibited. I don't think we don't need a guideline to say that though. The HN guidelines don't list everything that's prohibited. To publish such a list would be to imply that everything not on the list is ok. That would be a big mistake! It would be carte blanche to the entire internet to find loopholes and wreak havoc with them. > Sometimes the pattern is overwhelming. The trouble is that in many cases it feels like such a pattern—and the feeling can be super convincing—yet there turns out to be no evidence for it. Perceptions are awfully unreliable about this. We ask people not to post about these things in the threads, not to imply that actual astroturfing etc. is at all ok, but because unfounded comments about it vastly outnumber well-founded comments. Worse, they have a way of proliferating and taking over the threads. Keep in mind that that guideline doesn't say "please don't post and then do nothing". It says "please don't post, but do email us so we can look into it". We do look into it, and on occasions when we find evidence, we act on it. There just needs to be something objective to go on, and in most cases there isn't. The phenomenon of internet users being far too quick to jump to conclusions about astroturfing, bots, etc., is extremely well established. If there's one phenomenon we've learned about decisively over the years, that's the one. (Well, one of two.) Btw, I've written about this a ton over the years (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...). I particularly remember writing these two: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851 (May 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 (June 2021) They're long, but they still hold up as descriptions of these phenomena and the moderation approach we take to them.

goku12 1y ago

Respectfully, there is nothing baity about that title. The body of that article justifies it. XSLT is only about the last third of it.

dang 1y ago
These things land differently with different readers, of course, but "Google is killing the open web" does seem pretty baity to me. The combo of grand-claim and something-to-get-mad-about usually is. It doesn't take too large a set of provoked readers to get a large enough set of provoked commenters to bump a thread into flamewar mode.
- goku12 1y ago
  Please take this as a point of discussion rather than as an argument. That title is something that I and many others would have come up with on our own without needing any provocation. In fact, the exact same thing has been said numerous times independently all over the net. There are so many instances that justify the assertion that you could make a very long list with the relevant HN stories alone. But that isn't the point of this reply. The way I see it, any general or sweeping accusation against an entity may be construed as clickbait or too provocative for HN, even if the content backs it up sufficiently. But at what point are you going to draw the line where you consider the accusations to be credible enough to warrant such a scathing crticism? It's not as if these entities are renowned for their ethical conduct or even basic decency regarding the commons. Heated public lash back is often the only avenue they leave us. Case in point, I hope you remember the stand that the HN crowd took against WEI. Make no mistake, such discussions here don't go unnoticed. The talking points here often influence the public discourse, including by mass media. That's why there is such a fierce fight to control the narrative here. I respect your right to your opinion. But this is essentially a political subject. And there is no getting around the fact that you cannot divorce politics from technology, or from any relevant subject for that matter. If that's considered as flame war, then I guess flame wars are an unavoidable and normal part technical discourse. It isn't personal (and no personal attacks should be involved), but the stakes are high enough for the contestants (often of high monetary nature). Attempts to curb such heated discourse will result in two serious consequences. The first is that you will give one or often both sides (ironically), the impression that HN is a place to amplify certain narratives without a balanced take. Secondly, you'll unintentionally and indirectly influence the outcome outside of HN. From my perspective, that leaves you in an unenviable predicament of such serious decisions. So I implore you to consider these matters as well while taking such decisions. Especially to ensure that your personal biases don't influence what you consider as click and flame baits. From my personal experience, I know that you're putting in the utmost care, diligence and sincerity in those matters. But it's possible that the pressure to avoid controversies, fights and bad blood might have shifted your Overton window too far into the cautious territory over time. Probably a good yard stick is to see if the flamewar is important enough and whether it avoids personal harm (physical and emotional). I hope you'll consider this opinion when you make similar determination in the future. Regards!