4 ms·

Why didn't you also include the off-topic portion of the guidelines and make a case why this post doesn't classify as off-topic? In what way am I gatekeeping?

by FloorEgg 10mo ago

Why didn't you also include the off-topic portion of the guidelines and make a case why this post doesn't classify as off-topic? In what way am I gatekeeping? You were asking for an explanation, and I was attempting to show you one. I sat back and wondered (without any emotional stake in this) "hmm, what is afavour implying here and why would this be flagged?" And then re-read the guidelines myself, and it was pretty clear how an interpretation of this post would classify as off-topic. I also don't understand your point about the front page or the "eat real food" post. What are you implying exactly? What this situation looks like to me: - you are outraged - you are making assumptions about political bias in the moderators choices to flag this post - you assume that I am siding with the moderators, rather than just pointing out how the moderators choices to flag this topic seems to align with the official guidelines. - you assume I fall into some political or ideological bucket, but I almost certainly don't. - the HN guidelines are there to foster intellectual curiosity, and part of that is acknowledging that topics that trigger outrage derail intellectual curiosity and are therefore off-topic. This post being flagged seems to be reasonably in line with this. - I misinterpreted your original comment as genuine curiosity. I conflated your "I'm curious how long this will take to be flagged" with the "ask yourself why", and assumed you would be open to an explanation for the "why". Clearly you were not. You've made up your mind already about the matter. You aren't curious about this at all, so maybe then we shouldn't be having a discussion about it on HN?

cholantesh 10mo ago
>you assume I fall into some political bucket, when I almost certainly don't (I am not American and I don't follow American media). I don't use any social media other than HN and a couple private group chats. This is pretty meaningless; one can share an ideology with an official they did not or even cannot vote for, and can do so even if they don't have Twitter.
- FloorEgg 10mo ago
  Are you implying that because I am pointing out how the HN guidelines state crime and other topics that trample curiosity are off-topic, I share some ideology with some American official that condones child porn?
  - cholantesh 10mo ago
    Whatever the guidelines state, those other topics are frequently discussed without much rancor which you refuse to confront. But anyway, all I was saying is that that specific line item is a non-sequitur.
    - FloorEgg 10mo ago
      > without much rancor which you refuse to confront I was responding to the "why is this post flagged?", and you changed scope to "justify all moderator decisions across the platform". Consider that you may have a sensitivity to certain topics that I do not. It seems like you see something I don't. I'm not condoning all moderator decisions. I'm not remotely familiar with all posts on HN. I'm only considering this one post and acknowledging how this topic is clearly trampling curiosity and that it seems reasonable to me that it's been flagged given the spirit and word of the HN guidelines. Of the posts I am familiar with, there have been several cases when a thread was flagged that at first seemed on-topic but after reflecting I realized the comments had gone off the rails and that's why it was flagged. This decision seems very much in line with other cases I've seen, but I can't justify all decisions nor am I position to even judge them. > But anyway, all I was saying is that that specific line item is a non-sequitur. It actually wasn't, though I could have been more clear about why it was relevant. Where people get information and what tribe they feel they belong to changes how they interpret new information. The reason I brought it up is because I was getting the sense from multiple replies to my comments that some people were assuming I (and the moderators) wanted to censor the underlying concern about Grok as if I was a part of the American culture/political war. I was just trying to clarify I am not a part of that and want nothing to do with it.
      - cholantesh 10mo ago
        >I was responding to the "why is this post flagged?", and you changed scope to "justify all moderator decisions across the platform". The actual question in the top-level comment you replied to is "why is this post, and other posts that discuss potential malfeasance from X/Grok regularly flagged?" It is implicit from follow-ups that appealing to the guidelines does not wash except as a thought-terminating cliche. In that sense I guess you are right, the topic can derail intellectual curiosity. > I was getting the sense from multiple replies to my comments that some people were assuming I (and the moderators) wanted to censor the underlying concern about Grok as if I was a part of the American culture/political war. The current iteration of techno-optimism characteristic of a lot of this site's userbase may have originated in SV, but it isn't the exclusive province of Californians. That's most likely what is being referred to.

cholantesh 10mo ago

>you assume I fall into some political bucket, when I almost certainly don't (I am not American and I don't follow American media). I don't use any social media other than HN and a couple private group chats. This is pretty meaningless; one can share an ideology with an official they did not or even cannot vote for, and can do so even if they don't have Twitter.

FloorEgg 10mo ago
Are you implying that because I am pointing out how the HN guidelines state crime and other topics that trample curiosity are off-topic, I share some ideology with some American official that condones child porn?
- cholantesh 10mo ago
  Whatever the guidelines state, those other topics are frequently discussed without much rancor which you refuse to confront. But anyway, all I was saying is that that specific line item is a non-sequitur.
  - FloorEgg 10mo ago
    > without much rancor which you refuse to confront I was responding to the "why is this post flagged?", and you changed scope to "justify all moderator decisions across the platform". Consider that you may have a sensitivity to certain topics that I do not. It seems like you see something I don't. I'm not condoning all moderator decisions. I'm not remotely familiar with all posts on HN. I'm only considering this one post and acknowledging how this topic is clearly trampling curiosity and that it seems reasonable to me that it's been flagged given the spirit and word of the HN guidelines. Of the posts I am familiar with, there have been several cases when a thread was flagged that at first seemed on-topic but after reflecting I realized the comments had gone off the rails and that's why it was flagged. This decision seems very much in line with other cases I've seen, but I can't justify all decisions nor am I position to even judge them. > But anyway, all I was saying is that that specific line item is a non-sequitur. It actually wasn't, though I could have been more clear about why it was relevant. Where people get information and what tribe they feel they belong to changes how they interpret new information. The reason I brought it up is because I was getting the sense from multiple replies to my comments that some people were assuming I (and the moderators) wanted to censor the underlying concern about Grok as if I was a part of the American culture/political war. I was just trying to clarify I am not a part of that and want nothing to do with it.
    - cholantesh 10mo ago
      >I was responding to the "why is this post flagged?", and you changed scope to "justify all moderator decisions across the platform". The actual question in the top-level comment you replied to is "why is this post, and other posts that discuss potential malfeasance from X/Grok regularly flagged?" It is implicit from follow-ups that appealing to the guidelines does not wash except as a thought-terminating cliche. In that sense I guess you are right, the topic can derail intellectual curiosity. > I was getting the sense from multiple replies to my comments that some people were assuming I (and the moderators) wanted to censor the underlying concern about Grok as if I was a part of the American culture/political war. The current iteration of techno-optimism characteristic of a lot of this site's userbase may have originated in SV, but it isn't the exclusive province of Californians. That's most likely what is being referred to.