4 ms·

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 sport

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.)
  - enraged_camel 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - Esophagus4 1y ago
      Man, that was condescending. Feel free to respond to any of the post above where I shared the actual data.
      - throw10920 1y ago
        When someone responds to a post with data and arguments with a condescending remark and no refutations, it's an admission that they lost the argument. Thank you for taking the time to find the data!
- throw10920 1y ago
  > You seem to be new here That's an emotionally manipulative way of dismissing their points that doesn't contribute to your argument, or to the site in general. > what you are referring to are not rules, they are guidelines That's semantics. When the "guidelines" are regularly adjusted, and when users are chastised or banned by the mods for not following them (even if not to the letter, but to the spirit of the law), then they are effectively rules. > because what is old and uninteresting to some is new and interesting to others. > you're robbing others of an opportunity to learn something new The scope of HN is not "everything that is new and interesting", nor is the point to "give others an opportunity to learn something new". The guidelines, and moderators, are pretty clear that there are new and interesting stories that are off-topic because they veer into mainstream political news territory that invariably leads into flamewars that degrade the quality of the site. There is a very good reason that politics are strongly discouraged/forbidden in the guidelines, and that users (including me) actively flag those posts: because that kind of discussion actively erodes and polarizes the community. > when you do it, you're acting based on your own preferences No, we're acting based on a basic understanding of human nature and experience with what happens when political stories make it through. The fact that you weren't able to answer Esophagus4's points and data in the other comment shows that your position isn't defensible.
  - enraged_camel 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - tomhow 1y ago
      I'm late to this but I figure it's worth replying to if only to not leave the record uncorrected. > So yes, the scope of HN is quite literally anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, which for a lot of people involves political topics. Therefore, one is indeed doing those users a great disservice by flagging such stories. There's a big difference between discussing a topic in the spirit of intellectual curiosity vs ideological battle. One can try to characterise the latter as the former as a way to justify anything as being within HN's scope, but it's quite easy for objective observers to see the difference in the way someone conducts themselves. Stories are off-topic on HN if most of the interest in those topics is from people who want to engage in ideological battle about that topic. Also, re. this: > I have no idea why I'm getting into this argument with a throwaway who might very well be a sockpuppet, but what the hell, let's do it Please don't be snarky in response to another user who had posted a perfectly legitimate comment. Their account has been active for over four years and has > 3500 karma, so they're clearly an established and valued contributor to HN.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bigstrat2003 1y ago
I flag all articles on politics, but not because of the rules... It's because they consistently turn into flame wars. Every single article on US politics, without fail, will have people flagrantly violating the site rules by just being hateful to whichever party they dislike. I used to get in there and flag comments to try to help combat the problem, but it got to be too much. Now I just flag the entire article because the discussions are always such low quality.
- throw10920 1y ago
  Please, try to start flagging comments again! I've found that a lot of flamewar-creating comments are just one flag away from being killed. A few minutes does a lot to help the culture, and you can almost always find a few high-quality, thoughtful comments in the flamewar as you scroll through.

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.)
- enraged_camel 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Esophagus4 1y ago
    Man, that was condescending. Feel free to respond to any of the post above where I shared the actual data.
    - throw10920 1y ago
      When someone responds to a post with data and arguments with a condescending remark and no refutations, it's an admission that they lost the argument. Thank you for taking the time to find the data!
throw10920 1y ago
> You seem to be new here That's an emotionally manipulative way of dismissing their points that doesn't contribute to your argument, or to the site in general. > what you are referring to are not rules, they are guidelines That's semantics. When the "guidelines" are regularly adjusted, and when users are chastised or banned by the mods for not following them (even if not to the letter, but to the spirit of the law), then they are effectively rules. > because what is old and uninteresting to some is new and interesting to others. > you're robbing others of an opportunity to learn something new The scope of HN is not "everything that is new and interesting", nor is the point to "give others an opportunity to learn something new". The guidelines, and moderators, are pretty clear that there are new and interesting stories that are off-topic because they veer into mainstream political news territory that invariably leads into flamewars that degrade the quality of the site. There is a very good reason that politics are strongly discouraged/forbidden in the guidelines, and that users (including me) actively flag those posts: because that kind of discussion actively erodes and polarizes the community. > when you do it, you're acting based on your own preferences No, we're acting based on a basic understanding of human nature and experience with what happens when political stories make it through. The fact that you weren't able to answer Esophagus4's points and data in the other comment shows that your position isn't defensible.
- enraged_camel 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 1y ago
    I'm late to this but I figure it's worth replying to if only to not leave the record uncorrected. > So yes, the scope of HN is quite literally anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity, which for a lot of people involves political topics. Therefore, one is indeed doing those users a great disservice by flagging such stories. There's a big difference between discussing a topic in the spirit of intellectual curiosity vs ideological battle. One can try to characterise the latter as the former as a way to justify anything as being within HN's scope, but it's quite easy for objective observers to see the difference in the way someone conducts themselves. Stories are off-topic on HN if most of the interest in those topics is from people who want to engage in ideological battle about that topic. Also, re. this: > I have no idea why I'm getting into this argument with a throwaway who might very well be a sockpuppet, but what the hell, let's do it Please don't be snarky in response to another user who had posted a perfectly legitimate comment. Their account has been active for over four years and has > 3500 karma, so they're clearly an established and valued contributor to HN.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

bigstrat2003 1y ago

I flag all articles on politics, but not because of the rules... It's because they consistently turn into flame wars. Every single article on US politics, without fail, will have people flagrantly violating the site rules by just being hateful to whichever party they dislike. I used to get in there and flag comments to try to help combat the problem, but it got to be too much. Now I just flag the entire article because the discussions are always such low quality.

throw10920 1y ago
Please, try to start flagging comments again! I've found that a lot of flamewar-creating comments are just one flag away from being killed. A few minutes does a lot to help the culture, and you can almost always find a few high-quality, thoughtful comments in the flamewar as you scroll through.