The only thing I see is unscientific content that was released by Guus Berkhout. The site was flagged 3 times before so maybe it's even autoflagged because it's been peddling bullshit since 2019 but who knows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Don’t you think it’s at least be insightful for whoever’s submitting content to understand why it was flagged?

If it’s content a submitter’s come across for the first time, and they don’t see it discussed here on HN, so they post it, and it immediately gets suppressed without any explanation, how does that help the submitter? (e.g. if it’s been autoflagged, it’d be helpful to see a reason for that, and perhaps a link to past discussion the submitter might have missed).

It just concerns me that this mechanism could be prematurely filtering out many valuable conversations that I’d like to be aware of.

One thing to remember is that this an old debate and there’s been a ton of astroturf on behalf of the fossil fuel industry since at least the 1980s. Those operatives rely on making things sound plausible so it’s not your fault for finding it interesting - making it sound that way is quite literally these guy’s jobs - but you’ll get their accumulated bad karma as people see it, recognize the source as a bad faith actor, and don’t want to spend their time rehashing something for the dozenth time.

I’d recommend searching a bit first but also avoid the sources like that who are trying to use your credibility on behalf of their clients. They will shed no tears for the cost to your reputation, which is deplorable but also predictable.

That's your problem. If you see your content flagged immediately your first course of action is complaining about it? Why not do the rational thing and google it so you can understand why other people flag it. As I said it's not my job to make you comprehend that the content you submitted is subpar quality. It's yours.

Maybe just move on with your life and don’t engage with the content if you’re not interested?

No, I care about the communities I participate in so if I see misinformation in "new" I flag it. (I didn't flag your submissions)

They do exactly what you want: engage with you, even though you seem to have already made up your mind about the desired outcome (which you aren't going to get).

To me this whole thread looks like a way to social engineer your way around getting your articles flagged in spite of that being the most democratic mechanism to keep HN on track.

Did you perhaps read the primary text of this submission?

It seems like everyone commenting here is totally missing the point of why I submitted this question in the first place and is so fixated on the content of the links I originally submitted that they just can’t see the actual questions I’m asking.

I’m tired of engaging with people who refuse to engage with the actual questions I asked.

But also, if there was at least a reason tagged along with the flagging, that could be helpful to submitters, don’t you think? Making people guess as to the reason for flagging seems like poor UX to me, and increases the overall hostility of the site to users.

Also, those links I posted are of far less importance to me than my actual concern in terms of how HN and other sites shape my perception of the world based on their UX design. That is the reason I posed this question. Not to complain about my posts getting flagged.

As a member of a community or site, it is important to take the time to familiarize yourself with the guidelines and frequently asked questions in order to understand how it operates. There are numerous threads available discussing user-driven moderation on this platform, some even addressing the same concerns you have raised. It seems that you have not made an effort to understand the rules and features of the site, leading to a fundamental misunderstanding and criticism that may not be warranted. It is worth noting that these rules have remained unchanged for the past decade, despite the political and global pandemic events of recent years.

Instead of contributing to the repetition of discussions on this topic, it may be more productive to seek out information and consider the possibility that the issue may lie with your own understanding and usage of the site. Additionally, making false claims about search results on a particular search engine only serves to undermine the credibility of your perspective. Alone because of the duckduckgo fib the discussion for me is over. I hope you have a pleasant day.

As per my comment on your other thread:

> Here you go, my first page of hits on mobile: https://imgur.com/a/zSL5fVX

> Only when I got to my laptop now did the set of links differ: https://imgur.com/a/EuUt7U5

> Clearly not the same set of results for the same search.

Re: this site's guidelines, I find your comment here a little disingenuous and far too generous towards HN's "guidelines". The mere fact that such content as this exists suggests that HN's guidelines are quite opaque: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented

It appears that you may have misunderstood the distinction between guidelines and their enforcement. While the guidelines themselves are public, the methods of enforcement are not made publicly available in order to prevent individuals from attempting to circumvent them.

> See that's another you problem you changed something and now your search results are distorted. Here are screenshots from 5 different VPN locations with different browsers and different user agents... https://imgur.com/a/P4zoAzf

Well now you know, dude. Take the L on this post and move on with your life.