If this was a topic that was somehow discussed previously, should there not be some kind of mechanism to indicate this in the flagging process? (Ideally automated)
I myself just hate misinformation and people that share and play victim when nobody engages with it.
It still seems you assume I have a particular agenda here beyond wanting to have a conversation on the topic.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=clintel&t=h_&ia=web
First Page Results:
https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clint...
https://insideclimatenews.org/todaysclimate/experts-debunk-v...
https://www.thequint.com/climate-change/1200-scientists-clai...
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-...
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-09-16/climate-scienc...
DuckDuckGo doesn't profile its users according to their search patterns, and everyone gets the same search results. [1]
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.
“Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.” [1]
If my post (which clearly wasn’t for or against the linked material) was not immediately flagged and killed then it would’ve been possible to actually solicit this kind of perspective.
But if my post is immediately killed then I never get to see this kind of insight.
Hence my question about whether there’s a better model than simply flagging content, as HN currently works.