6 ms·

This conversation already has comments on one side flagged to invisibility. If you are going to allow these conversations, but only allow one side, then Hacker

• dang 11mo ago
  If there are flagged comments which are not breaking the site guidelines, I'd like links to take a look at. The moderation intention is for comments which break the site guidelines to be flagged, regardless of which side they are or aren't on. It's not possible to reach this state perfectly, of course.
  • krautburglar 11mo ago
    Dude, your flag function is abused to no end, and you don't really do anything about it. One of the earliest comments I've made was one on semi-recent X11 history, and got flagged for it, because apparently everything is political now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45796728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45796728
    • dang 11mo ago
      I agree with you that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45796728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45796728 should not have been flagged, and have fixed that now.
      • krautburglar 11mo ago
        The post isn't the point. The point is that you have people abusing the flag mechanism. Maybe you should start ignoring their flags when they abuse it?
        • philipkglass 11mo ago
          That's already implemented. I overused flagging at one point in my account history and my flags stopped having any effect. I eventually emailed the moderators and pledged to be more judicious with my flagging if they'd give me the power back, and they gave it back.
          • krautburglar 11mo ago
            They need to use it more then.
  • kyboren 11mo ago
    At least one of mine, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46219068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46219068
    • dang 11mo ago
      The last sentence breaks the site guidelines.
      • kyboren 11mo ago
        OK, sure. How 'bout this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221729 Or this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221631 Or this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221972
        • deleted 11mo ago
          [deleted]
        • dang 11mo ago
          https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221729 sounds like cross-examining to me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221631 is not flagged. That might be because we'd already turned off flags on it (I can't remember). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221972 I agree should not be flagged and I've unflagged it.
          • kyboren 11mo ago
            The point isn't so much to litigate each flagged comment, just to highlight how pervasive the flag abuse problem is. And of course, when the flag abusers 'defect' and gain some utility, it is only rational for the 'victims' to themselves defect from the civil conversation and start to abuse flags. In threads that are, unfortunately, adversarial, abusing the flag button is a stable Nash equilibrium. I think it's a shitty equilibrium, though, and makes real, substantive conversations--ostensibly the goal on this forum--harder to achieve. I think it's high time to reconsider the current 'flag' mechanics. At the very least I think we would all be better off if flags were simply disabled on highly controversial topics.
  • tguvot 11mo ago
    95% of flagged comments don't break guidelines in any given discussion. flagging been used forever to silence "inconvenient facts" and "dissenting opinions" as example, just below there is reply to you saying that flagging been abused, been flagged
    • dang 11mo ago
      > 95% of flagged comments don't break guidelines in any given discussion That number is much too high IMO, so I assume we interpret the site guidelines very differently. > as example, just below there is reply to you saying that flagging been abused, been flagged I assume you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221396? No, you'd see "[flagged]" if that were the case. The comment is [dead], but it was killed by software, not flagged by users. I'll restore it.
      • arminiusreturns 11mo ago
        Can expound on what software did this on its own?
        • dang 11mo ago
          There are various software filters based on past abuses by related accounts.
      • tguvot 11mo ago
        [flagged]
        • sporkxrocket 11mo ago
          A lot of my comments calling out Israel for this terrorist attack are flagged. Also, this should certainly not be flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46219097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46219097
          • 11mo ago
  • fabian2k 11mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46218945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46218945 That one doesn't seem to violate the rules, and there is a lot of discussion below it.
    • dang 11mo ago
      Agreed, and I unflagged that one a while before you posted your comment here - most probably you had a non-refreshed version of the page.
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
• stevekemp 11mo ago
  There are no useful discussion to be had on such topics as war in Isreal, Donald Trump (be it "stolen elections", or foreign politics), or Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Nobody will ever think "That was a well-reasoned argument I now believe war crimes were, or were not, committed". The best thing to do on posts like this is avoid reading them, or flag them. It feels like there's an obviously correct side to most of these issues, the problem is half the audience here believes their side is correct and yours is wrong.
  • beedeebeedee 11mo ago
    > There are no useful discussion to be had on such topics I think there are useful discussions to be had on these topics, and in fact, we must have those discussions. The issue is that, if we want to do so productively and a comment section is the only venue for us to speak to each other, then we must be extremely patient with others and ourselves and reflect on what they say and what we say (i.e., discuss in good faith). That burden may be too high for most people, but collectively, we don't have a better forum anymore, and we need to have these discussions and come to consensus before the world is engulfed in authoritarianism or war (which is not hyperbole).
    • TimorousBestie 11mo ago
      You might believe there are useful discussions to be had, but when a faction of readers like the GP flag or downvote every thread they don’t like, then it’s impossible to have any conversation, no matter how much good faith is brought to bear. Manually appealing to dang for unflagging is not a workable solution either. This really is an entirely unsuitable forum for this discussion.
      • beedeebeedee 11mo ago
        It shouldn't be the case that people acting in bad faith can disrupt meaningful discussion between people acting in good faith. I am at a loss to suggest a better forum. Town halls, protests, talking to people on the street, Congress, etc, are not able to have these discussions either. Maybe this is not the forum, but then what is? A philosophy class you took ten years ago?
• j_maffe 11mo ago
  I know, right? Check this perfectly reasonable one: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=46218955 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=46218955