You don't know that and I don't believe it's true.
Your example is cherry-picked. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34625001 is by the same author on the same topic and spent 12 hours on HN's front page.
You have no data that proves even suggests it isn't. I have data that suggests a extremely strong correlation, corroborated with suppression of dissent by downvotes and flagging.
>Your example is cherry-picked. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34625001 is by the same author on the same topic and spent 12 hours on HN's front page.
...of course it's cherry picked. That's my whole fucking point. Are you really this dense?
Discussion by a talented researcher showing cool things about ChatGPT: "spent 12 hours on HN's front page"
Discussion by the same talented researcher proving that ChatGPT has a political bias, and one with an equal but opposite bias can be created: flagged in minutes, and effectively shadowbanned.
Can't have that! It challenges the notion of "reality having a liberal bias", a belief the that Rozado's first analysis would seem to the naïve to confirm: https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/political-bias-chatgpt
Yet when the same researcher proves that it's the bot, and not reality, something that challenges HN's confirmation bias: THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE HURTS, HIDE THE HURTY WORDS
Rozado draws an underline under it:
>As I have explained before, the low cost of customizing the political alignment of AI and the potential proliferation of AI systems customized to manifest different political biases, could make the problem describe above even worse as people might come to trust AIs as the “ultimate sources of truth” while gravitating towards those AI systems providing confirmation for their pre-existing beliefs.
To HN, an AI can only be "the ultimate source of truth" if it shares their biases, as it demonstrated by flagging his proof that it doesn't almost instantly.
>This renders the two groups almost unable to communicate with each other and therefore condemned to mutual incomprehension (as Jonathan Haidt has argued previously). <- https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/wo
And you personally exacerbate the problem by not letting people talk.
Hilariously, twitter has become the only social media worth a fuck. Which HN loathes because it was freed it from the woke cult's control. Ideology pushing is perfectly allowed here. But only one. Just like any other church.
Second, you've linked to a photo that says something about Netflix, Twitter, Airbnb, Apple, Stripe, Lyft, Google, Salesforce, Facebook, Tesla, eBay, PayPal, and Microsoft. It's not clear to me what that's supposed to have to do with Hacker News moderation.
It's not at all true that ideological battles are fine here for one side but not the other, as anyone can see for themselves if they want to look back through the thousands of moderation comments I've posted. You feel that way, not because you're perceiving moderation accurately, but for the same reason that led https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35238927 to say "Literally anything left-of-right-of-centre immediately gets flagged (if not outright banned by the mods)".