Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig...
by magicalist on Thursday October 15, 2020 @05:34PM
(#24794309)
> I've been here over 10 years and I don't really recall seeing anything other than blatant spam or crap removed in that time.
Well, besides the usual "who decides what's 'blatant spam or crap'?" response to the "it's only bad stuff that gets censored", I'd suggest you haven't really been paying attention, then. Take a look at dang's comment history[1] and you'll see a lot of warnings before ban but also plenty of bans and references to previous bans, usually for substantive, not spam, reasons.
Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig...
by meroes on Thursday October 15, 2020 @06:03PM
(#24794680)
You must have missed the DOJ filing against Yale last week. Removed in <30 minutes due to comments.
Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig...
by doktrin on Thursday October 15, 2020 @09:36PM
(#24796487)
As others have already mentioned, HN is in fact actively moderated. It's by far the most curated public discussion forum I frequent. The civil tone that prevails here is in many ways a result of the community guidelines being strictly enforced, and backed up with a banhammer.
If you were to take the above at face value, would this change your perception about the value of moderation in online communities?
Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig...
by esoterica on Thursday October 15, 2020 @06:46PM
(#24795171)
HN is a LOT more heavily moderated than Facebook, Twitter, and most subreddits. You must really not have been paying attention if you haven't noticed after 10 years.
Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig...
by mNovak on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:09AM
(#24797373)
Controversial content (lately that means political) regularly gets flagged and removed. As a recent example the NYT Trump Taxes article went through cycles of being posted, rapidly upvoted, then flagged to algorithmic removal, over and over again. To point where meta-discussion came online (and was flagged) [1]
Personally I think downvoting is the appropriate response to say "this is not interesting or relevant to HN", but many have realized flagging provides outsized influence.
Sometimes I agree with things a lot of people here clearly disagree with and I'm fine with that. I can decide to either argue my/their case or move on and accept we have different views. Maybe sometimes seeing things heavily downvoted here changes my mind on subject as well and question if my views are right or not.
We can't all agree about everything all the time. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. We all are, nobody is ever 100% right, 100% of the time. I sure as hell don't want somebody else controlling everything I see and read because they think it might give me the "wrong" ideas. I'm an adult and I should be allowed to make my own mind up and most importantly question things, as should everybody else, regardless of education level or where they "fit" into society.
When I think about all of the forums and comment sections I regularly interact with, the ones with the most open, democratic, free speech, with little to no direct moderation seem to be the most engaging, tolerant and frankly, nicer places. I've given up on engaging with anything that's heavily moderated or frankly, blatantly biased - Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and I feel a lot happier.
‘I would rather have questions that cannot be answered, than answers that cannot be questioned’ - Richard Feynman.