-- original comment --
I've detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42992992 in order to save space at the top of the thread. (Btw normally I just turn off replies on pinned-to-the-top comments, but in this case I wanted to give people a chance to post their responses.)
> That would only be true if the flaggers were disinterested judges who never comment.
I don't follow this argument. Can you rephrase it?
Flagging flamewars is an appropriate use of flagging on HN. If this thread turns into the kind of flamewar we normally want to see flagged, that's evidence in favor of the users who made that call in the first place.
> the possibility that any of them could be flagging or commenting in bad faith
Of course. I've made this point many times about flags, including in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42993092): there's usually two kinds of flaggers: users who want to suppress a story because they don't like it (e.g. politically), and users who feel like the story isn't in keeping with the site guidelines and are worried about protecting HN. I assume by "bad faith" you mean the first kind.
The number of dead posts in recent weeks is unprecedented. Some have upwards of 100 votes. I never saw a dead post in 2017 or 2021 that struck me as suspiciously flagged. But multiple times this week I've written a comment on a post only to have the comment blocked on submission because the post was flagged while I was writing. (or in the case of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42994293, flagged, unflagged, and flagged again.)
There is clearly something unusual happening with flags. There is an obvious correlation between the post topic and likelihood of flags, even when the post's comments are reasonable.
I think this motivated flagging is preventing productive discussion on HN, and it's healthier in the long term for Hacker News to allow perhaps excessive discussions on these currently popular topics. Otherwise HN risks developing a reputation that it systematically suppresses discussions critical of the current administration. I think that reputation would linger for far longer than the temporary irritation some might feel about the currently popular topic.
I'd say what's unusual is the macro environment. This is the most politically intense moment in years. HN can't be immune from macro trends (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
There have been periods like this in the past, such as 8 years ago when you-know-who first took power. I hear you that you don't remember it being this bad then; FWIW my memory is otherwise. Either way, the moment will subside. HN has always gone through this kind of fluctuation.
> I think this motivated flagging is preventing productive discussion on HN
I don't see how one can say that discussion is being prevented when the topic is is by far the most-discussed on HN (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42977160 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978572 for recent posts on that). The current thread has been on the front page for 9 hours and counting, and has over 1000 comments and counting.
I know some people would prefer more, but that is always the case about any topic. Moreover, everyone has at least one topic they feel that way about. These are perennial conditions that come from the fundamentals of the site, not recent trends.
> it's healthier in the long term for Hacker News to allow perhaps excessive discussions on these currently popular topics
I have to disagree—I think the health of Hacker News depends on not doing this. In fact, times like this are when we should reinforce HN's differentiation from other forums by insisting on its particular focus (i.e. that it's a forum for intellectual curiosity, not a current affairs site). They're what Barack Obama used to call "teachable moments" - a chance to sharpen the specific character of this site. If we lose users who get frustrated because they can't use HN primarily for political battle, that makes me sad, but the solution is not to use HN primarily for political battle.
> Otherwise HN risks developing a reputation that it systematically suppresses discussions critical of the current administration.
It's not true that HN does this, so anyone who believes it is jumping to a false conclusion. It bothers me a lot when people do that, but you wouldn't believe how often it happens, and how many kinds of false generalization people come up with—I could give you hundreds, nay thousands of examples. I've learned that it's a bad idea to worry too much about the false conclusions about HN that people jump to for reasons of their own.
Not that I've stopped worrying too much about it—I still do, I've just learned that it's a bad idea. Trying to dissuade anyone from these beliefs is futile—it is pouring one's energy into a bottomless black hole. Which I still do as well.
My subconscious worry (now conscious) was that the "political flaggers" would discover the effectiveness of flagging, and expand its use to here-on-out sink any politically unfavorable news topic.
But I then realized that you (HN mod(s)) have been IMO faultless for a decade at unflagging or boosting posts on contentious topics that add at least a smidgen of new information. Sometimes it takes a couple hours for moderation to kick in but that's reasonable.
So I'll continue to trust in HN's moderation, and cease worrying that my favorite discussion forum is in jeopardy!
Say some don't like stories about crypto currency, but tolerates them. So, stories about crypto currency appear and attract those interested in crypto currency. Say there are also stories about public projects, but those interested in crypto currency don't tolerate stories about public projects, so there are flamewars for those stories.
Your conclusion would then be that Hacker News is a good place for stories about crypto currency, but not for stories about public projects. Because stories about public projects creates flamewars and should therefor be removed.
When in reality those interested in public projects would be the ones wanting interesting discussions, while those interested in crypto currency would be acting against the spirit of the site.
As stories about public projects are removed eventually those interested in them would leave and stories about how public projects can't work would meet little resistance. Therefor not creating any flamewars and be good for HN. Yet, it would at best be the opposite of curiosity.
For example, the comments that drive flamewars are mostly not produced by the accounts that have flagged the thread.
Therefor I haven't really gotten anything out of this which both doesn't make me interested in (nor do I think I can be expected to be) these conditions for a further discussion. I'm happy to reconsider at any point (but can't guarantee a response) if you have any specific questions about my comment.
If you want to prove your theory that flamewars makes those flagging right and not what I said, it is up to you. Which is even more reasonable considering you have the responsibility to run this site, the tools required for it and are getting paid to do it.
While I understand that you don't want to share flagging or voting preferences (though I don't consider this intimate data myself), it's hard for people have confidence in the flagging/vouching mechanism because there is no indicator of volume or frequency. One might argue that if there was it would be gamed, but the site is obviously being gamed as is. One indicator is the elevated volume of baity comments from throwaway accounts on some discussions.
No it won't. That would only be true if the flaggers were disinterested judges who never comment. You're projecting your desire for a good civil discussion onto them without considering the possibility that any of them could be flagging or commenting in bad faith, ie with a view to shaping the outcome of the discussion rather than optimizing the quality thereof.