5 ms·

Summary: Censorship by group-think. Unharmonious comments will just never be seen.

krapp 13y ago
maybe, maybe not? There are enough 1k+ karma posters that, at least unless the karma bar is either raised or a lot of malcontents are culled, consensus on controversial topics is likely to be impossible. At least I hope so.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > unless the karma bar is either raised or a lot of malcontents are culled, consensus on controversial topics is likely to be impossible Well _of course_ consensus on controversial topics is impossible. That's kind of what makes them controversial topics. But how is that related to whether you never even see controversial posts because group-think has not resulted in uncensoring them?
  - krapp 13y ago
    Because it's almost certain someone in that pool is going to be willing to endorse it. It's too fragile a system to allow for groupthink to be enforced.
crusso 13y ago
The guidelines don't mention anything about "unharmonious". They only recommend to avoid endorsing posts without content like "this" style comments, and comments that are made in an aggressive non-collegial way. If that's group think, then awesome. Let the group think begin.
- wpietri 13y ago
  Are you telling me that every truth you have ever recognized has been conveyed to you in the most collegial of ways? I can recall a number of occasions where somebody told me something important and they might as well have started out with "Look, asshole". Deservedly so, because I was not just wrong but wrong in a way that was conveniently self-serving and harmful to them. I would also like to see the dickishness taken down a notch or three here. But if it comes at the cost of making this more of an echo chamber, then it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
  - crusso 13y ago
    There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can get your "truth" or whatever in a medium of abuse. The people running this site have asked that this not be one of them. I say this as a person who appreciates and uses sarcasm more than most... people can communicate just fine, often more effectively, without it. Plus, it's more than just how something is said. If you read PG's short request, he's looking for a change in attitude in how points are even argued. Argue as colleagues coming to a solution together, not as adversaries trying to take each other down.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      I agree that we should stamp out abuse. And I'd love to see less king-of-the-argument-hill behavior around here. However, you've created a false dichotomy; there are things in the world that are neither abusive nor particularly collegial. The concern is that in getting rid of the abuse, Hacker News will also get rid of uncomfortable truth.
      - crusso 13y ago
        Point to a single place where the policy even implies that uncomfortable truths are not endorsable? Like I said, I'm sarcastic - but I definitely have seen HN go downhill since I've been here over the last couple of years. I look at the need to say things more constructively as a learning and growth opportunity.
        wpietri 13y ago
        Uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable. People often confuse discomfort with wrongness. The policy doesn't have to say that people shouldn't endorse uncomfortable truths for it to have that result. That people will misuse power to keep comfortable is something that you shouldn't have to have explained to you.
deveac 13y ago
Meh. Site has up and down votes as well, along with flags. This is just another effort to keep the crap level down and quality up. If you've got something to say, you can say it in a way that isn't inflammatory or low value. This is a privately held gathering place, and if the price for absolute lack of censorship is comments and rhetoric that incite, inflame, go off topic, or otherwise just make this gathering place worse, then they can be shown the door. No virtue in that with respect to a private space with high value conversation as one of its premier objectives IMHO.
- wpietri 13y ago
  I think "inflammatory" is often situational, individual. I'm not personally worried. I'm seen as an insider. As Louis CK says, "How many advantages can one person have?" [1] But people who aren't part of the HN tribe already think they're treated unfairly here, and from what I read on Twitter, they're confident that this change will only increase the level of groupthink by making sure their comments never get even seen. Personally, I think that comments that incite and inflame are often useful. I agree that there's plenty of pure dickishness here, and I'd love to see that go. But sometimes comments are upsetting because they contain uncomfortable truth. Sometimes we skate on by the polite statement when a passionate outburst will force to see things through someone else's eyes. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
  - deveac 13y ago
    I understand your point, but for a long time the tougher nut to crack for online forums has been quality, staying on topic, and not derailing the discussion by being uncivil or hostile. One of the nice things about HN is that users are rather blunt in their critiques. I think the gatekeepers (>1k karma) will generaly do a good job separating frankness from hostility. At any rate, it's an interesting experiment and I'm truly curious to see how it plays out.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      Why do you need on-topic when you have threading. What you need is collapsible threads; thread OT _for you_ then collapse and move on.
riggins 13y ago
there are a million websites with low quality, un-moderated discussion. Personally I like the idea of pending comments.

krapp 13y ago

maybe, maybe not? There are enough 1k+ karma posters that, at least unless the karma bar is either raised or a lot of malcontents are culled, consensus on controversial topics is likely to be impossible. At least I hope so.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> unless the karma bar is either raised or a lot of malcontents are culled, consensus on controversial topics is likely to be impossible Well _of course_ consensus on controversial topics is impossible. That's kind of what makes them controversial topics. But how is that related to whether you never even see controversial posts because group-think has not resulted in uncensoring them?
- krapp 13y ago
  Because it's almost certain someone in that pool is going to be willing to endorse it. It's too fragile a system to allow for groupthink to be enforced.

crusso 13y ago

The guidelines don't mention anything about "unharmonious". They only recommend to avoid endorsing posts without content like "this" style comments, and comments that are made in an aggressive non-collegial way. If that's group think, then awesome. Let the group think begin.

wpietri 13y ago
Are you telling me that every truth you have ever recognized has been conveyed to you in the most collegial of ways? I can recall a number of occasions where somebody told me something important and they might as well have started out with "Look, asshole". Deservedly so, because I was not just wrong but wrong in a way that was conveniently self-serving and harmful to them. I would also like to see the dickishness taken down a notch or three here. But if it comes at the cost of making this more of an echo chamber, then it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
- crusso 13y ago
  There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can get your "truth" or whatever in a medium of abuse. The people running this site have asked that this not be one of them. I say this as a person who appreciates and uses sarcasm more than most... people can communicate just fine, often more effectively, without it. Plus, it's more than just how something is said. If you read PG's short request, he's looking for a change in attitude in how points are even argued. Argue as colleagues coming to a solution together, not as adversaries trying to take each other down.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    I agree that we should stamp out abuse. And I'd love to see less king-of-the-argument-hill behavior around here. However, you've created a false dichotomy; there are things in the world that are neither abusive nor particularly collegial. The concern is that in getting rid of the abuse, Hacker News will also get rid of uncomfortable truth.
    - crusso 13y ago
      Point to a single place where the policy even implies that uncomfortable truths are not endorsable? Like I said, I'm sarcastic - but I definitely have seen HN go downhill since I've been here over the last couple of years. I look at the need to say things more constructively as a learning and growth opportunity.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        Uncomfortable truths are uncomfortable. People often confuse discomfort with wrongness. The policy doesn't have to say that people shouldn't endorse uncomfortable truths for it to have that result. That people will misuse power to keep comfortable is something that you shouldn't have to have explained to you.

deveac 13y ago

Meh. Site has up and down votes as well, along with flags. This is just another effort to keep the crap level down and quality up. If you've got something to say, you can say it in a way that isn't inflammatory or low value. This is a privately held gathering place, and if the price for absolute lack of censorship is comments and rhetoric that incite, inflame, go off topic, or otherwise just make this gathering place worse, then they can be shown the door. No virtue in that with respect to a private space with high value conversation as one of its premier objectives IMHO.

wpietri 13y ago
I think "inflammatory" is often situational, individual. I'm not personally worried. I'm seen as an insider. As Louis CK says, "How many advantages can one person have?" [1] But people who aren't part of the HN tribe already think they're treated unfairly here, and from what I read on Twitter, they're confident that this change will only increase the level of groupthink by making sure their comments never get even seen. Personally, I think that comments that incite and inflame are often useful. I agree that there's plenty of pure dickishness here, and I'd love to see that go. But sometimes comments are upsetting because they contain uncomfortable truth. Sometimes we skate on by the polite statement when a passionate outburst will force to see things through someone else's eyes. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
- deveac 13y ago
  I understand your point, but for a long time the tougher nut to crack for online forums has been quality, staying on topic, and not derailing the discussion by being uncivil or hostile. One of the nice things about HN is that users are rather blunt in their critiques. I think the gatekeepers (>1k karma) will generaly do a good job separating frankness from hostility. At any rate, it's an interesting experiment and I'm truly curious to see how it plays out.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    Why do you need on-topic when you have threading. What you need is collapsible threads; thread OT _for you_ then collapse and move on.

riggins 13y ago

there are a million websites with low quality, un-moderated discussion. Personally I like the idea of pending comments.