Personally I hope Tom will bring new moderation policies that will truly let unpopular opinions thrive, but I don't have high hopes here since this is just an announcement of a new moderator, not an announcement of new moderation policies.
"downvote" seems more appropriate for for "this is not interesting and should be less prominent".
"flag" seems more appropriate for "this should not be here at all".
By way of an example, on a political story, if you say something merely unpopular, you'll get downvotes and replies; if you say something hateful, you'll (usually) get flagged.
I don't think that's generally a function of the moderators though.
That's why I have only flagged one or two posts, ever, but not because I was mad, but because the comment was just plain beyond the pale.
And my posts against portaying violent rape in film got flagged.
Make it make sense, because I understand the failure of this system because systems are my trade-in-craft.
I have flagged a few comments but I'm rarely mad.
And if one is mad because of a disrespectful comment, the flagging is probably appropriate too.
Yes, indeed.
This is cope, just like "I'm being downvoted for speaking the truth!". Nobody thinks "wow, they said a true statement, I should downvote them".
I suggest you try to steelman the idea of flagging and see that maybe there could be other things at play.
Precisely. That's the biggest problem with closed-minded fools.
Or maybe you misunderstand (on purpose?). I'm saying you attribute those downvotes incorrectly. It's maybe natural to do so as an instinct -- "those people are against me!" -- but on HN it's expected to be a bit more introspective. It's incorrect to say that "people downvote because I'm right" or "people downvote because they have nothing to say".
That's why you say I'm incorrect, because you are the center of the universe and have nothing to learn. You say you don't understand, then accuse me of willfully misunderstanding?
People aren't aginst me, they're against the truth, because very few people consider compassion to be the most important scale we should measure our attitudes and behaviors against.
"Nothing is more important than compassion, and only the truth is its equal."
"A fool is a person who hears the truth, and calls it a lie."
I love you. You shouldn't denigrate me, friend.
The point is that those who already know everything are ignorant fools who are ignoring the truth because they are self-satisfied with their own level of attainment. They don't know they have read a new truth that they should integrate into their being, so they lash out at that truth and the person who is trying to expand their worldview.
In other words, most people are intellectual and moral cowards, happy to carry the torch for their cultures' idiotic traditions, without ever thinking twice or entertaining outside opinions.
Peace be with you.
No it doesn't. To borrow from the law, ignorance requires no scienter. It simply means you lack knowledge of factual or situational context, willfully or otherwise.
There is a difference between expressing unpopular opinions (e.g. "manifest V3 is good"), which receive an appropriate level of considered disagreement; and expressing opinions that are removed administratively.
In my experience, the former is quite common, while the latter only occurs in cases of hateful or off-topic comments. That is as it should be. No one is obligated to agree with you, and that fact should not dissuade you from expressing yourself.
That's not a moderation issue. You can post that opinion, and people will disagree with it, post responses to it, and downvote it. It will not be flagged out of existence, unless it's also violating site policy in other ways.
Meanwhile personal attacks and hyperbole regarding Elon Musk and Trump have become very common on HN.
Speaking from personal experience only: I have mostly not observed "polite, well-worded posts disagreeing with the mainstream" get downvoted to oblivion, unless some other factor also applies, such as that they're also things that seem likely to lead to a rehashed old-as-the-hills disagreement with no new information that will not on balance change any minds.
If you post (by way of example only, please observe the use-mention distinction here) a polite version of "ads are good and adblockers are stealing", and get a massive pile of downvotes, I think that's a reasonable signal that the community isn't interested in seeing iteration 47,902 of that argument, and has no expectation that anything new will come out of that argument. If you have something new to say on that topic that is likely to lead into new and interesting arguments, at this point you would need to signpost that heavily, prefacing it with some equivalent of "Please note that I'm aware this is an age-old argument, but I think I have a new point to make that is worth considering", and then actually make a new point, at which point I think you're less likely to get downvoted to oblivion.
Personally, I don't downvote "mere" disagreement. I downvote (among other things) what seems to me to be uninteresting or thoughtless or insufficiently diligent disagreement, or factually incorrect information, or anything that seems like a discussion that spawned from it will not be interesting.
Now, that said, another factor here is that some people posting on political topics in particular believe they're making "polite well-worded posts disagreeing with the mainstream", and others do not share that belief and flag it to oblivion. For example, posts expressing bigotry mostly get flagged, no matter how surface-level "polite" they are.
Sure, I imagine the grandparent poster means arguing something like "limiting access for extensons is good because they're often used to steal financial assets". Old extensions are sold, or cracked and updated to inclue malware.
Why is this required, in order not for the comment to be downvoted to oblivion? You may be confusing bias with nuance.
(It's still regularly abused on stories as a downvote, perhaps in part because stories don't have downvotes. HN sometimes "rescues" stories that get over-flagged, but it's still a problem.)
Personally, I’d prefer no up-/downvoting and flagging at all (or flagging only to alert moderators), and purely chronological threading. But I also think that active moderation and crowd-sourced ranking mechanics are two different things.
I think that's a very different kind of forum, and it needs different tools to be usable, and it more quickly fails into unusability.
For example, I think it's useful that on balance the top few comments and their discussion are likely to be interesting, and the last few comments are unlikely to be interesting.
What I see a lot of is this:
User posts "$opinion $generalization $snark $dismissal $adhominem".
User gets down voted or flagged. User complains that downvotes are for expressing $opinion and that $opinion is not allowed on this site!
But we can all see the other things in their post that probably brought on most of the downvotes.
Most stuff I downvote is because of the way it's expressed, not because of the opinion itself.
I definitely DO NOT mean clear hate speech, etc.. that's not my point at all.
Shouting matches and rhetorical posturing are exhausting. There are places for that—most places online, anymore; this is not one of them.
But I'm the one that is rate limited in this thread and prevented from interacting with people politely.