42 ms·

>> The best part? No politics, trivia, or spam. Mainstream media news is rare Boy what incredibly different universes we live in. If anyone already has the in

>> The best part? No politics, trivia, or spam. Mainstream media news is rare Boy what incredibly different universes we live in. If anyone already has the infrastructure set up for this already, I really, really, wish for something where the top X HN stories can be input to AI sentiment analysis and graphs automatically created which shows, per time period, the % of submissions it classifies as "political" and the % classified as "mainstream news". In the top 100 posts on any given day it has to be a significant percentage. I flag all political posts I see and I'm constantly flagging. The AI analysis wouldn't be perfect, but it would at least be fairly impartial, and automated. Why not collect the data?

dooglius 1y ago
Thank you for helping keep up the quality of the site
wilg 1y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 1y ago
  Flagging ability is scaled - it takes multiple "regular users" with flag privileges to raise a [flag] and further more to tip posts to [dead] (there are other paths to [dead]). Some users are granted 'instant' [flag] -> [dead] privileges (if they consistently only flag obvious spam), their work is looked at, if they start showing a bias that ability is degraded. Part of the moderation task at HN is weighting user feedback by looking at individual behaviour.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Even if it takes multiple flags to kill an article, that's still vulnerable to brigading. So it takes 10 flags to censor a topic instead of 1? Fine, me and my 9 sockpuppet accounts will flag the article. Or just 10 like-minded people independently deciding to abuse flag as a mega-downvote. Two changes to flagging would really improve it, and cause it to not be used casually as a mega-downvote: 1. Flag-powered users should only get like 1-2 flags a week. 2. Flagging should be attributable back to the user who flagged it. If you feel you're doing the site a good service by flagging trash articles, then you should have no problem with publicly linking your name to the flagging action.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      That's a great idea
    - throw10920 1y ago
      > Even if it takes multiple flags to kill an article, that's still vulnerable to brigading. So it takes 10 flags to censor a topic instead of 1? Fine, me and my 9 sockpuppet accounts will flag the article. That's just an argument against sockpuppet accounts, and for detection and removal of those accounts. > Or just 10 like-minded people independently deciding to abuse flag as a mega-downvote. That's known as "user moderation" or possibly a "democratic system" if you consider the number of flaggers alone, which is a good thing; or if you're concerned about instead the incorrect usage of the flag tool: as stated above, the mods already look for and occasionally take away flagging privileges. So this isn't a problem. > 1. Flag-powered users should only get like 1-2 flags a week. Given that I see several flag-worthy stories and several dozen flag-worthy comments a day, this is a terrible proposal. > 2. Flagging should be attributable back to the user who flagged it. This is also a bad idea, because there are many bad actors who will still abuse that information, regardless of whether or not you're using the tool as intended. This proposal seems like it's designed to facilitate that abuse. An actually good proposal is that the mods should be more aggressive about monitoring and either promoting or taking away flagging privileges.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  I think the weight of a flagging should be inversely proportional to how often the flagger flags things.
- Esophagus4 1y ago
  It’s plainly against the rules of the site to post political stories, other than a few exceptions: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon… If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. I flag most politics, too (not the legitimately interesting think pieces… I’m talking about the day-to-day DC noise). I don’t want this place to turn into the front page of Reddit or Facebook - outrage bait news stories and sensational half-truth political headlines to generate engagement. This is a unique space, as the article mentions, and I think it’s so interesting to engage with people here. I want to hang onto that. Over time, if we’re not careful, this could end up being overrun by: “You won’t believe what Chuck Schumer Tweeted about TRUMP’s latest executive order!!”
  - AnonC 1y ago
    You missed “most” in the guidelines as well as in your own admission, but start by saying “it’s plainly against the rules”.
    - Esophagus4 1y ago
      Don’t be pedantic. I said there are some stories I don’t flag.
  - enraged_camel 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - Esophagus4 1y ago
      I’ll ignore the slight about “you must be new here,” but I don’t flag all political stories, just the ones that are high-noise, low-signal. But rather than arguing in the abstract, let’s look at the data. Here’s what I’ve flagged recently: > Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agreeing new rules > State Department Revokes Visas over Charlie Kirk Comments > Rand Paul: FCC chair had "no business" intervening in ABC/Kimmel controversy > Yes, Jimmy Kimmel's suspension was government censorship > Tylenol-maker shares hit after report RFK Jr will suggest autism link Each of those you can find on any other outrage-based pseudo-news site across the internet: Twitter will be in echo chamber flame wars over them, CNN will be in breaking news mode, NYT, WSJ, and the Washington Post will cover them, Reddit and Facebook and Instagram will push them… Are those the stories you’re really fighting to keep on here? Do you have objections to me flagging any of those? Who am I depriving of an opportunity to learn about those rare, insightful pieces? (And by the way, 3/5 of those were flagged by the community as well. So it seems like the community agrees with me more than it disagrees.)
Blackarea 1y ago
Do you have any examples. I don't think I would classify more than a handful posts as political myself
- NitpickLawyer 1y ago
  I've noticed a lot of politics creeping into discussions on a bunch of topics. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm not american that makes it a bit more obvious? But every now and then the comments devolve into red v. blue on topics about space, AI, and what not. It's a bit off-putting for those outside the us, but it is what it is. At the end of the day, people will talk about what makes them angry more than about what makes them happy, I guess.
culll_kuprey 1y ago
A big problem is high karma accounts are allowed to constantly politically flamebait But the nobodies get snuffed out pretty quickly, often for much less. Not surprisingly, various groups often grant those with greater tenure and more connection leniency. I just despise the lies.
- fishmicrowaver 1y ago
  I mean honestly if you're new to most sites and your first instinct is to delve into contentious political issues you should probably be shown the exit pretty quick.
  - nickthegreek 1y ago
    So true. Heavy believer in lurking in any community you join prior to being loud. Understanding the norms of micro cultures and adapting to them is an important step to successfully integrating if you plan to be there for awhile.
- dang 1y ago
  Which accounts are you referring to? If you don't want to post names publicly, you'd be welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com.
  - Teever 1y ago
    I personally have noticed that 'celebrity' users like WalterBright often great technical contributions to the community but that their contributions in social/political discussions are often patronizing in a way that I don't feel would be considered acceptable if a less 'important' user was to make them. I can spot a few shallow comments that he's made in the last few days alone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45610226#45612377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45610226#45612377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45580981#45596209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45580981#45596209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45595784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45595784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45595919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45595919
busymom0 1y ago
I am actually building something which does this exactly. I'll probably have it ready this weekend. If you email me (in my profile), I can notify you when it's live.

dooglius 1y ago

Thank you for helping keep up the quality of the site

wilg 1y ago

[flagged]

defrost 1y ago
Flagging ability is scaled - it takes multiple "regular users" with flag privileges to raise a [flag] and further more to tip posts to [dead] (there are other paths to [dead]). Some users are granted 'instant' [flag] -> [dead] privileges (if they consistently only flag obvious spam), their work is looked at, if they start showing a bias that ability is degraded. Part of the moderation task at HN is weighting user feedback by looking at individual behaviour.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Even if it takes multiple flags to kill an article, that's still vulnerable to brigading. So it takes 10 flags to censor a topic instead of 1? Fine, me and my 9 sockpuppet accounts will flag the article. Or just 10 like-minded people independently deciding to abuse flag as a mega-downvote. Two changes to flagging would really improve it, and cause it to not be used casually as a mega-downvote: 1. Flag-powered users should only get like 1-2 flags a week. 2. Flagging should be attributable back to the user who flagged it. If you feel you're doing the site a good service by flagging trash articles, then you should have no problem with publicly linking your name to the flagging action.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    That's a great idea
  - throw10920 1y ago
    > Even if it takes multiple flags to kill an article, that's still vulnerable to brigading. So it takes 10 flags to censor a topic instead of 1? Fine, me and my 9 sockpuppet accounts will flag the article. That's just an argument against sockpuppet accounts, and for detection and removal of those accounts. > Or just 10 like-minded people independently deciding to abuse flag as a mega-downvote. That's known as "user moderation" or possibly a "democratic system" if you consider the number of flaggers alone, which is a good thing; or if you're concerned about instead the incorrect usage of the flag tool: as stated above, the mods already look for and occasionally take away flagging privileges. So this isn't a problem. > 1. Flag-powered users should only get like 1-2 flags a week. Given that I see several flag-worthy stories and several dozen flag-worthy comments a day, this is a terrible proposal. > 2. Flagging should be attributable back to the user who flagged it. This is also a bad idea, because there are many bad actors who will still abuse that information, regardless of whether or not you're using the tool as intended. This proposal seems like it's designed to facilitate that abuse. An actually good proposal is that the mods should be more aggressive about monitoring and either promoting or taking away flagging privileges.
terminalshort 1y ago
I think the weight of a flagging should be inversely proportional to how often the flagger flags things.
Esophagus4 1y ago
It’s plainly against the rules of the site to post political stories, other than a few exceptions: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon… If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. I flag most politics, too (not the legitimately interesting think pieces… I’m talking about the day-to-day DC noise). I don’t want this place to turn into the front page of Reddit or Facebook - outrage bait news stories and sensational half-truth political headlines to generate engagement. This is a unique space, as the article mentions, and I think it’s so interesting to engage with people here. I want to hang onto that. Over time, if we’re not careful, this could end up being overrun by: “You won’t believe what Chuck Schumer Tweeted about TRUMP’s latest executive order!!”
- AnonC 1y ago
  You missed “most” in the guidelines as well as in your own admission, but start by saying “it’s plainly against the rules”.
  - Esophagus4 1y ago
    Don’t be pedantic. I said there are some stories I don’t flag.
- enraged_camel 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Esophagus4 1y ago
    I’ll ignore the slight about “you must be new here,” but I don’t flag all political stories, just the ones that are high-noise, low-signal. But rather than arguing in the abstract, let’s look at the data. Here’s what I’ve flagged recently: > Journalists turn in access badges, exit Pentagon rather than agreeing new rules > State Department Revokes Visas over Charlie Kirk Comments > Rand Paul: FCC chair had "no business" intervening in ABC/Kimmel controversy > Yes, Jimmy Kimmel's suspension was government censorship > Tylenol-maker shares hit after report RFK Jr will suggest autism link Each of those you can find on any other outrage-based pseudo-news site across the internet: Twitter will be in echo chamber flame wars over them, CNN will be in breaking news mode, NYT, WSJ, and the Washington Post will cover them, Reddit and Facebook and Instagram will push them… Are those the stories you’re really fighting to keep on here? Do you have objections to me flagging any of those? Who am I depriving of an opportunity to learn about those rare, insightful pieces? (And by the way, 3/5 of those were flagged by the community as well. So it seems like the community agrees with me more than it disagrees.)

Blackarea 1y ago

Do you have any examples. I don't think I would classify more than a handful posts as political myself

NitpickLawyer 1y ago
I've noticed a lot of politics creeping into discussions on a bunch of topics. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm not american that makes it a bit more obvious? But every now and then the comments devolve into red v. blue on topics about space, AI, and what not. It's a bit off-putting for those outside the us, but it is what it is. At the end of the day, people will talk about what makes them angry more than about what makes them happy, I guess.

culll_kuprey 1y ago

A big problem is high karma accounts are allowed to constantly politically flamebait But the nobodies get snuffed out pretty quickly, often for much less. Not surprisingly, various groups often grant those with greater tenure and more connection leniency. I just despise the lies.

fishmicrowaver 1y ago
I mean honestly if you're new to most sites and your first instinct is to delve into contentious political issues you should probably be shown the exit pretty quick.
- nickthegreek 1y ago
  So true. Heavy believer in lurking in any community you join prior to being loud. Understanding the norms of micro cultures and adapting to them is an important step to successfully integrating if you plan to be there for awhile.
dang 1y ago
Which accounts are you referring to? If you don't want to post names publicly, you'd be welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com.
- Teever 1y ago
  I personally have noticed that 'celebrity' users like WalterBright often great technical contributions to the community but that their contributions in social/political discussions are often patronizing in a way that I don't feel would be considered acceptable if a less 'important' user was to make them. I can spot a few shallow comments that he's made in the last few days alone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45610226#45612377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45610226#45612377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45580981#45596209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45580981#45596209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45595784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900#45595784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45595919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45595919

busymom0 1y ago

I am actually building something which does this exactly. I'll probably have it ready this weekend. If you email me (in my profile), I can notify you when it's live.