5 ms·

We'll let the normal penalties pull this off the front page, because there are countless laws proposed by activist lawmakers, very few of which ultimately make

by tomhow 1y ago

We'll let the normal penalties pull this off the front page, because there are countless laws proposed by activist lawmakers, very few of which ultimately make it into law. HN has always preferred to wait until something is actually passed into law before considering it worthy of front page time here.

giraffe_lady 1y ago
You're so unprepared for the emerging political reality in the US it almost looks intentional.
- tomhow 1y ago
  The rest of the internet can cover this stuff just fine. We don't need to let eternally attention-hungry politicians be the reason to drag HN away from its purpose for existing.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - giraffe_lady 1y ago
    What would be the reason to drag HN away from its purpose for existing? If the answer is "nothing" it's a ready-made propaganda outfit.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      HN's reason for existing is to discuss "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", and "anything that good hackers would find interesting", and things that involve "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". It's right there at the start of the guidelines and it's always what we use to judge what content is on topic or off topic. That's been constant from the beginning. It excludes "daily political rage bait" for the important reason that most of the rest of the internet is dominated by that stuff and we think it's important that there's one corner of the internet that isn't quite so dominated by it.
      - giraffe_lady 1y ago
        I stand by my first comment here. You are embarrassingly, dangerously unprepared for what is required of you.
        tomhow 1y ago
        We routinely host huge discussions about major political developments, some of which spend all day on the front page then continue to smoulder on for days. We're not avoiding discussion of important topics. We're preserving this place as somewhere that can be a better place to discuss important topics when they emerge. But that means being consistent in our criteria for what qualifies and what doesn't.
        giraffe_lady 1y ago
        [flagged]
- cyclicall 1y ago
  [dead]
Hizonner 1y ago
It's true that US state legislators propose a lot of whackjob bills that get exploited for headlines and then die. They usually don't have 5 co-sponsors, though, not even out of 110 in a chamber.
- tomhow 1y ago
  The guidelines already state that "most stories about politics" are off topic, "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". We've had plenty of stories about censorship of adult content lately. Politicians campaigning to censor adult content is nothing new. We don't need to feed their eternal hunger for attention. The rest of the internet can do that just fine. If and when this ever becomes something that meets the HN guidelines, it can have its due attention.
  - tastyface 1y ago
    And yet you regularly disable flags for tech-irrelevant current events with limited discussion potential (Hulk Hogan death, Venezuela boat strike, etc.) while keeping flags enabled for comprehensively researched articles like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 I am concerned you do not see your own biases in play.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      I've responded to you before about Hulk Hogan, but I'll elaborate further. A celebrity death is both "significant new information" and also not usually worth being on the front page of HN. We turned off the flags on the submission because it's a bit unseemly to have [flagged][dead] tags on an obituary post. We'd do that for any celebrity obituary post we see flagged. But we also let it to drop off very quickly and, with our help, it spent no more than 10 minutes on the front page. Regarding political posts, there will always be grey areas and different people feeling strongly about whether or not particular posts should or should not be discussed. We're always looking for the test of whether the story of evidence of an "interesting new phenomenon", and whether it's a topic that HN can have a healthy, curious discussion about. Our bias is for HN to be a place for curious discussions rather than rage-filled flamewars, to whatever extent we can influence that.
fzeroracer 1y ago
I think this is an exceedingly short-sighted view of something that can and will prove to be an increasingly existential challenge to HNs existence. States are already pushing towards and have passed age verification laws for example with supreme court signoff. This is just a continuation and the next step down that pathway. In any other year I would agree with you that this is just a single thing pushed by a loon that would be shut down in court. If these laws get passed and anything tangentially related to transgender stuff is viewed as obscene are you and the rest of HN prepared to either censor the site or deal with the consequences of being in the political crosshairs?
- cyclicall 1y ago
  [dead]
- tomhow 1y ago
  We can't make moderation HN decisions out of a fear that a censorship bill proposed by a small group of activist rank-and-file legislators in Michigan might eventually lead to us "being in the political crosshairs". That kind of "thin end of the wedge" fear is no different to the kind that's drummed up by the people proposing these laws. If we're not going to apply the HN guidelines and norms consistently we may as well not have them. It's interesting to see people who participate on HN every day repeatedly telling us that our guidelines and our ways of implementing them are bad.
  - fzeroracer 1y ago
    My point isn't that the HN guidelines and norms should change, but rather there's a high chance of the norms being forced to change as the US government further puts its thumb on the internet. Again, saying it's a small group of activist legislators is ignoring the greater wave on the horizon. I say this as someone that's in the gaming community primarily which has resulted in significant changes already as a result of the payment processor shenanigans.
    - tomhow 1y ago
UncleMeat 1y ago
This thread is currently flagged. If you are just letting normal penalties pull this off the front page, why keep the flag?
foldr 1y ago
The UK age verification laws were discussed very extensively on HN before becoming law. Here is one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30256984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30256984 Or more generally, just search for HN threads about 'proposed laws': https://www.google.com/search?q=hn+%22proposed+law%22+ycombinator&num=10&sca_esv=1720fa6fb76a49fc&ei=lqnJaP2cHoTMhbIP77O--Q4&ved=0ahUKEwj9v9L_8d2PAxUEZkEAHe-ZL-8Q4dUDCBI&uact=5&oq=hn+%22proposed+law%22+ycombinator&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHWhuICJwcm9wb3NlZCBsYXciIHljb21iaW5hdG9yMgcQIRigARgKSLEMUIcCWNELcAF4AJABAJgBcKAB-geqAQM1Lja4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgygAqIIwgIOEAAYgAQYsAMYhgMYigXCAgsQABiABBiwAxiiBMICCxAAGLADGKIEGIkFwgIIEAAYsAMY7wXCAgUQIRifBcICBRAhGKABmAMAiAYBkAYHkgcDNi42oAfzE7IHAzUuNrgHnAjCBwU0LjcuMcgHFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=hn+%22proposed+law%22+ycombi... I am not convinced that there has ever been a de facto HN policy of flagging threads about proposed laws. I don't see it in the guidelines or in the historical actions of the moderators or community.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tomhow 1y ago
  It all depends on how close it is to becoming a real law. If it's an official policy of the party that's in government and the bill is a complete piece of legislation [1] whose passage is inevitable and imminent, then it can be considered an "interesting new phenomenon" and warrants a discussion. That doesn't seem to be the case here. As far as I can establish, the bill's sponsors don't have any leadership roles in the state legislature and it's not an official policy of the party's leadership. It looks every bit like routine activism and headline-seeking by low-ranking members of the legislature. Dang has commented about this routinely over the years. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20proposed%20bills&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - foldr 1y ago
    That makes sense, but it’s not what you said (“HN has always preferred to wait until something is actually passed into law before…”) Hence my response.

by tomhow 1y ago

giraffe_lady 1y ago

You're so unprepared for the emerging political reality in the US it almost looks intentional.

tomhow 1y ago
The rest of the internet can cover this stuff just fine. We don't need to let eternally attention-hungry politicians be the reason to drag HN away from its purpose for existing.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  What would be the reason to drag HN away from its purpose for existing? If the answer is "nothing" it's a ready-made propaganda outfit.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    HN's reason for existing is to discuss "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", and "anything that good hackers would find interesting", and things that involve "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". It's right there at the start of the guidelines and it's always what we use to judge what content is on topic or off topic. That's been constant from the beginning. It excludes "daily political rage bait" for the important reason that most of the rest of the internet is dominated by that stuff and we think it's important that there's one corner of the internet that isn't quite so dominated by it.
    - giraffe_lady 1y ago
      I stand by my first comment here. You are embarrassingly, dangerously unprepared for what is required of you.
      - tomhow 1y ago
        We routinely host huge discussions about major political developments, some of which spend all day on the front page then continue to smoulder on for days. We're not avoiding discussion of important topics. We're preserving this place as somewhere that can be a better place to discuss important topics when they emerge. But that means being consistent in our criteria for what qualifies and what doesn't.
        giraffe_lady 1y ago
        [flagged]
cyclicall 1y ago
[dead]

Hizonner 1y ago

It's true that US state legislators propose a lot of whackjob bills that get exploited for headlines and then die. They usually don't have 5 co-sponsors, though, not even out of 110 in a chamber.

tomhow 1y ago
The guidelines already state that "most stories about politics" are off topic, "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". We've had plenty of stories about censorship of adult content lately. Politicians campaigning to censor adult content is nothing new. We don't need to feed their eternal hunger for attention. The rest of the internet can do that just fine. If and when this ever becomes something that meets the HN guidelines, it can have its due attention.
- tastyface 1y ago
  And yet you regularly disable flags for tech-irrelevant current events with limited discussion potential (Hulk Hogan death, Venezuela boat strike, etc.) while keeping flags enabled for comprehensively researched articles like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44816165 I am concerned you do not see your own biases in play.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    I've responded to you before about Hulk Hogan, but I'll elaborate further. A celebrity death is both "significant new information" and also not usually worth being on the front page of HN. We turned off the flags on the submission because it's a bit unseemly to have [flagged][dead] tags on an obituary post. We'd do that for any celebrity obituary post we see flagged. But we also let it to drop off very quickly and, with our help, it spent no more than 10 minutes on the front page. Regarding political posts, there will always be grey areas and different people feeling strongly about whether or not particular posts should or should not be discussed. We're always looking for the test of whether the story of evidence of an "interesting new phenomenon", and whether it's a topic that HN can have a healthy, curious discussion about. Our bias is for HN to be a place for curious discussions rather than rage-filled flamewars, to whatever extent we can influence that.

fzeroracer 1y ago

I think this is an exceedingly short-sighted view of something that can and will prove to be an increasingly existential challenge to HNs existence. States are already pushing towards and have passed age verification laws for example with supreme court signoff. This is just a continuation and the next step down that pathway. In any other year I would agree with you that this is just a single thing pushed by a loon that would be shut down in court. If these laws get passed and anything tangentially related to transgender stuff is viewed as obscene are you and the rest of HN prepared to either censor the site or deal with the consequences of being in the political crosshairs?

cyclicall 1y ago
[dead]
tomhow 1y ago
We can't make moderation HN decisions out of a fear that a censorship bill proposed by a small group of activist rank-and-file legislators in Michigan might eventually lead to us "being in the political crosshairs". That kind of "thin end of the wedge" fear is no different to the kind that's drummed up by the people proposing these laws. If we're not going to apply the HN guidelines and norms consistently we may as well not have them. It's interesting to see people who participate on HN every day repeatedly telling us that our guidelines and our ways of implementing them are bad.
- fzeroracer 1y ago
  My point isn't that the HN guidelines and norms should change, but rather there's a high chance of the norms being forced to change as the US government further puts its thumb on the internet. Again, saying it's a small group of activist legislators is ignoring the greater wave on the horizon. I say this as someone that's in the gaming community primarily which has resulted in significant changes already as a result of the payment processor shenanigans.
  - tomhow 1y ago

UncleMeat 1y ago

This thread is currently flagged. If you are just letting normal penalties pull this off the front page, why keep the flag?

foldr 1y ago

The UK age verification laws were discussed very extensively on HN before becoming law. Here is one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30256984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30256984 Or more generally, just search for HN threads about 'proposed laws': https://www.google.com/search?q=hn+%22proposed+law%22+ycombinator&num=10&sca_esv=1720fa6fb76a49fc&ei=lqnJaP2cHoTMhbIP77O--Q4&ved=0ahUKEwj9v9L_8d2PAxUEZkEAHe-ZL-8Q4dUDCBI&uact=5&oq=hn+%22proposed+law%22+ycombinator&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHWhuICJwcm9wb3NlZCBsYXciIHljb21iaW5hdG9yMgcQIRigARgKSLEMUIcCWNELcAF4AJABAJgBcKAB-geqAQM1Lja4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgygAqIIwgIOEAAYgAQYsAMYhgMYigXCAgsQABiABBiwAxiiBMICCxAAGLADGKIEGIkFwgIIEAAYsAMY7wXCAgUQIRifBcICBRAhGKABmAMAiAYBkAYHkgcDNi42oAfzE7IHAzUuNrgHnAjCBwU0LjcuMcgHFA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=hn+%22proposed+law%22+ycombi... I am not convinced that there has ever been a de facto HN policy of flagging threads about proposed laws. I don't see it in the guidelines or in the historical actions of the moderators or community.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tomhow 1y ago
It all depends on how close it is to becoming a real law. If it's an official policy of the party that's in government and the bill is a complete piece of legislation [1] whose passage is inevitable and imminent, then it can be considered an "interesting new phenomenon" and warrants a discussion. That doesn't seem to be the case here. As far as I can establish, the bill's sponsors don't have any leadership roles in the state legislature and it's not an official policy of the party's leadership. It looks every bit like routine activism and headline-seeking by low-ranking members of the legislature. Dang has commented about this routinely over the years. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20proposed%20bills&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- foldr 1y ago
  That makes sense, but it’s not what you said (“HN has always preferred to wait until something is actually passed into law before…”) Hence my response.