4 ms·

> The first example was flagged by users. It fits the pattern of other political clickbait stories. That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here

> The first example was flagged by users. It fits the pattern of other political clickbait stories. That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here, as it is too easy to downvote.

hungryhobbit 2mo ago
[flagged]
- throw1234567891 2mo ago
  The problem isn’t low quality content, that gets filtered out mostly before it reaches the front page. The problem are people who downvote based on emotional trigger, not argument. And people ganging up. Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes? Seems like an organised group.
  - NewsaHackO 2mo ago
    That seems more like a conspiracy theory. I think the group of people who 1) view this website and 2) click on a thread about certain topics are a heavily conditioned (and therefore more homogenized) group; if you say something that is controversial/low quality, it is likely going to get downvoted by multiple people in that group.
    - rustystump 2mo ago
      Controversial/low quality are both subjective and i am not a fan of putting controversial next to low quality. I do agree I dont think there is any larger bias other than a homogeneous group but it does question if such a group will up/down vote similar homogeneous content producing overall lower quality discussion and content.
  - hamburglar 2mo ago
    > Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes? Well, no, I never have, but if I did, my first reaction would be to think I struck a nerve and had a bunch of people react, not that there was a conspiracy.
    - throw1234567891 2mo ago
      You’d think so if that was like a continuous process. You wouldn’t if you get a couple of upvotes during the day, then 5 downvotes during 1 minute, and nothing more for hours. What really pisses me off on this site is that continuing arguments (as in a discussion based on arguments, not being argumentative) often leads to people downvoting to kill the convo. So many unproductive discussions here where you know your arguments are fine but people just downvote because they can. Not surprised soma y people are like ”fuck it, throw away account it is”.
      - hamburglar 2mo ago
        Perhaps if you are prone to conspiracy thinking you should not be tracking your downvotes down to the minute.
nonethewiser 2mo ago
>That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here He didn’t say that at all. He said there was bias towards removing negative AI posts. He showed no knowledge of the flagging system and that it could just be working as intended.
zahlman 2mo ago
And yet submissions don't get flagged nearly as much as ought to happen.
- throw1234567891 2mo ago
  [flagged]

> The first example was flagged by users. It fits the pattern of other political clickbait stories. That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here, as it is too easy to downvote.

hungryhobbit 2mo ago

[flagged]

throw1234567891 2mo ago
The problem isn’t low quality content, that gets filtered out mostly before it reaches the front page. The problem are people who downvote based on emotional trigger, not argument. And people ganging up. Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes? Seems like an organised group.
- NewsaHackO 2mo ago
  That seems more like a conspiracy theory. I think the group of people who 1) view this website and 2) click on a thread about certain topics are a heavily conditioned (and therefore more homogenized) group; if you say something that is controversial/low quality, it is likely going to get downvoted by multiple people in that group.
  - rustystump 2mo ago
    Controversial/low quality are both subjective and i am not a fan of putting controversial next to low quality. I do agree I dont think there is any larger bias other than a homogeneous group but it does question if such a group will up/down vote similar homogeneous content producing overall lower quality discussion and content.
- hamburglar 2mo ago
  > Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes? Well, no, I never have, but if I did, my first reaction would be to think I struck a nerve and had a bunch of people react, not that there was a conspiracy.
  - throw1234567891 2mo ago
    You’d think so if that was like a continuous process. You wouldn’t if you get a couple of upvotes during the day, then 5 downvotes during 1 minute, and nothing more for hours. What really pisses me off on this site is that continuing arguments (as in a discussion based on arguments, not being argumentative) often leads to people downvoting to kill the convo. So many unproductive discussions here where you know your arguments are fine but people just downvote because they can. Not surprised soma y people are like ”fuck it, throw away account it is”.
    - hamburglar 2mo ago
      Perhaps if you are prone to conspiracy thinking you should not be tracking your downvotes down to the minute.

nonethewiser 2mo ago

>That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here He didn’t say that at all. He said there was bias towards removing negative AI posts. He showed no knowledge of the flagging system and that it could just be working as intended.

zahlman 2mo ago

And yet submissions don't get flagged nearly as much as ought to happen.

throw1234567891 2mo ago
[flagged]