EDIT: and re the "I've never seen", e.g. just in the last few days I saw a comment asking people about their coworkers and their skin colors, and if they really knew any "really dark and not just mocha" ones that were capable. "All muslims are violent terrorists" is also something occurring every now and then. On the other side of the isle, I've seen people being (IMHO correctly) banned for too aggressively defending "SJW" ideas.
The posts were hidden from the frontpage, by moderators, through whatever mechanism. Why? Not as technical question, but why was decision made to hide it? What's the argument behind doing something like that?
If any users can explain why they are flagging this post, I'd be interested in knowing too. To what end, exactly?
The moderators do not deny being responsible for it.
How can you tell? Something being flagged by users looks exactly like this. Things rise to the front page, get more attention and age slightly, a few flags come in and push down the ranking.
I will concede though, I technically can't tell. However, if "a few flags" really can push an article from the front page down to page 10 within the course of five minutes I still have the following to say:
1. This system is easily abused
2. Accepting these flags on an article like this is accepting abuse, which is the purview of moderation
In other words, the system is laid out to hide anything that a few users don't like to be seen and the moderation supports that tacitly.
Why?
This sort of eternal argument doesn't lead anywhere, and I'm not seeing much indication of good faith here, just battling for one side against another. That happens to be a continuation of just what we're asking you not to do. If you want to smite enemies, please do it someplace else.
I refuse your attempt at categorizing me. This isn't a battle. I don't want any "pro-SJW" content hidden from the front page either, just because a few people don't like it. That's not what user flagging is good for.
My point stands: As moderators, why do you accept these bad-faith flags that have a huge impact on visibility? With this policy, you are supporting the extremists on both ends.
I recommend family therapy.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
> What arguments does moderation have to moderate HN?
That wasn't the question, what's the argument for moderation to flag the original article? No arguments have been brought forth, not before and not now. Thank you for your reply, but it just doesn't address the point.
> We get accused of supporting white supremacism and misogyny...
That's the whole problem. I have never ever seen an actual white supremacist or a bona-fide woman-hater on HN (or most anywhere tech related). What I do see all the time is people of the "social justice" persuasion labeling most any criticism in such defamatory terms. Then, if somebody jumps in to defend someone's right to hold a different viewpoint, they too get attacked as "enablers" (or similar). It's dishonest and disgraceful and it needs to stop. The first step is to not ever pander to those people.
> ... just as much as the kind of things you guys are saying here.
What's wrong with what we're "saying here"?
> It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle.
I disagree with that.
> This is in the site guidelines, which we'd appreciate it if you'd read and follow
Let me cite:
"On Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
There is a strong need for this kind of open debate in the tech sector and it would be great if you didn't make an effort to push it under the rug, or even suppress it.