It's not a difficult topic. It's a topic that is spammed with discussion that is either: (a) members of two tribes giving each other the full nelson, (b) members of two tribes gloating with other members of their tribe saying that the members of the other tribe are stupid.
That sure sounds like a form of difficulty. Getting back to the original question, discussing difficult topics requires very disciplined moderation which most people/forums cannot afford.
"The fact is, it’s very easy to moderate comment sections. It’s very easy to remove spam, bots, racial slurs, low-effort trolls, and abuse. ... But once you remove all those things, you’re left with people honestly and civilly arguing for their opinions. And that’s the scariest thing of all." https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread...
Whether people are civil or uncivil, most people don't have interesting things to say about almost anything, even if we're talking about something like concurrency. That's why those kinds articles are massively upvoted and undercommented, even though this is HN and technical things should be its forte.
But HN has gotten so big that even technical programming and math topics are too hard (harder than topics of gender and sexuality, of which people have plenty of words to say). If you feel you're the kind of person who is pursuing some inquiry with commitment, then you need to find other people who match you in energy and preparation.
Then, as I've suggested multiple times over several years to HN moderators, something is lacking with HN's moderation system if it favours ideological sniping (which I also find tiresome) over substantive engagement.
Though I'm highlighting today's big story, the problem extends well beyond national and international politics. It may even be getting better, as I've seen good discussion of numerous locial, local, equity, and urban/regional planning topics in the past months.
But the overall problem remains a frequently recurring one.
It's particularly difficult to quantify or assess as there's no specific search capability for flagged articles.
And further: the discussion on the linked post, as memorialised at the Internet Archive, is distinctly free of the spamming you describe.
There are numerous specific isues in the report concerning Internet, Web, Silicon Valley, and related technologies, firms, practices, and concerns, most especially Facebook and Twitter.
Among other outcomes, the consequences and repercussions are all but certain to include massive changes to self- and externally-imposed industry regulation. The Net's age of innocence is over.
Blanket declarations that the story is off-topic seem at best parlous thin.
> Blanket declarations that the story is off-topic seem at best parlous thin.
Allow me to directly quote the guidelines: “Off-topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, [...] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
Mentioning the internet, web, silicon valley, or “related technologies” does not make it on-topic.
> specific isues in the report concerning Internet, Web, Silicon Valley, and related technologies, firms, practices, and concerns, most especially Facebook and Twitter.
And specific articles about numerous such issues have been discussed on HN (with varying "success"), and there's no reason to believe it won't happen with issues based on details from the Mueller report.
>HN is for technical/scientific discussions. It is quite common for political topics to get removed.
>[ Edit ] As PaulHoule mentioned, also business.
Also, apparently, wondering why more people than ever are defecating on the streets of San Francisco.
A thread which is almost entirely political in its content, by the way. And quite popular, judging by how much of the /newcomments feed it takes up. And not flagged.
Being flagged off the front page because it is explicitly off topic per the guidelines is not a sign that HN is unable to discuss topics of its “difficulty” (and it's not even an especially difficult topic compared to many that aren't flagged off; it's just particularly egregiously off-topic.)
Hacker News is the private toy of Y Combinator. Their guidelines and their moderation policies and practices can be rather opaque and capricious. On the whole, I'm glad HN exists but I don't like the direction it's going.
I think you are misunderstanding: the issue isn't what HN is able to discuss, it's that HN isn't interested in the topics you want to discuss (which aren't particularly difficult, just expressly not what HN is about, in one case, and pointlessly omphaloskeptic, in the other.)
(Also, why would you link from a comment in the thread to the archive.org link for the same thread? If that link exists, it's not useful, and if it were to become useful, it would only be because it no longer existed.)
Archive org preserves state and status at a specific time. If posts are removed, edited, or status changes, the state at the time of posting isn't retained. IA WBM however does
Much of the Web, HN included, is not a static record. As past experience has taught me, hence this practice.
As to your first assertion, we clearly disagree, and I'll posit the arrow of misunderstanding is reversed.
I don’t think it’s a problem of discussing difficult topics, but rather there’s a tribe mentality in tech that tends to coalesce around certain ideas/topics etc, and anything that’s not within that sphere gets beat down.
I'm terribly disappointed that this community of thoughtful, interesting bakers can't seem to effectively discuss the topic of whether or not beans belong in chili.
23 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 55.2 ms ] thread"The fact is, it’s very easy to moderate comment sections. It’s very easy to remove spam, bots, racial slurs, low-effort trolls, and abuse. ... But once you remove all those things, you’re left with people honestly and civilly arguing for their opinions. And that’s the scariest thing of all." https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread...
But HN has gotten so big that even technical programming and math topics are too hard (harder than topics of gender and sexuality, of which people have plenty of words to say). If you feel you're the kind of person who is pursuing some inquiry with commitment, then you need to find other people who match you in energy and preparation.
Though I'm highlighting today's big story, the problem extends well beyond national and international politics. It may even be getting better, as I've seen good discussion of numerous locial, local, equity, and urban/regional planning topics in the past months.
But the overall problem remains a frequently recurring one.
It's particularly difficult to quantify or assess as there's no specific search capability for flagged articles.
And further: the discussion on the linked post, as memorialised at the Internet Archive, is distinctly free of the spamming you describe.
[ Edit ] As PaulHoule mentioned, also business.
Among other outcomes, the consequences and repercussions are all but certain to include massive changes to self- and externally-imposed industry regulation. The Net's age of innocence is over.
Blanket declarations that the story is off-topic seem at best parlous thin.
Allow me to directly quote the guidelines: “Off-topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, [...] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
Mentioning the internet, web, silicon valley, or “related technologies” does not make it on-topic.
And specific articles about numerous such issues have been discussed on HN (with varying "success"), and there's no reason to believe it won't happen with issues based on details from the Mueller report.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19691621
>[ Edit ] As PaulHoule mentioned, also business.
Also, apparently, wondering why more people than ever are defecating on the streets of San Francisco.
A thread which is almost entirely political in its content, by the way. And quite popular, judging by how much of the /newcomments feed it takes up. And not flagged.
>(Russian election interference report flagged off front page.)
Why is a tech news/discussion board unable to effectively discuss politics?
https://web.archive.org/web/20190418221606/https://news.ycom...
(Also, why would you link from a comment in the thread to the archive.org link for the same thread? If that link exists, it's not useful, and if it were to become useful, it would only be because it no longer existed.)
Much of the Web, HN included, is not a static record. As past experience has taught me, hence this practice.
As to your first assertion, we clearly disagree, and I'll posit the arrow of misunderstanding is reversed.
I'm terribly disappointed that this community of thoughtful, interesting bakers can't seem to effectively discuss the topic of whether or not beans belong in chili.