Ask HN: Make Flagging Activity Public?

It would be great if HN's rules is not (partly) dictated by law. Some posts ought to be silenced preferably immediately.

So what if it were public? It's still essentially private because all the usernames are anonymous.

Makes sense to me why that story got flagged.

>- people are sick of 'political' stories and flag them out of tedium

Looking at active page, pretty minimal politics. So they are being flagged, the reasoning is unknown.

>- there is a prevailing pro-Trump, anti-science majority of active users on the site

lol the polar opposite is quite true. Virtually no support for trump on HN. Most of us arent in the USA, and those ive seen who are, are clearly democrats. Us Canadians hate trump pretty much, even the Maple MAGA crowd has disappeared.

>- there are active influence campaigns using sock-puppet accounts to hide and prevent discussion of ongoing attacks on science

<tinfoil> tags missing?

If the rationales for flagging were made public, it would only create arguments which would dilute the quality of conversation even more. It would not, in any way, change flagging behavior. If anything people would flag more things even harder, just for the opportunity to post their manifestos against the content.

I flag submissions even when I agree on the topic. Basically any topic where I can’t see the comments as enhancing someone’s knowledge and will just be politics and whataboutism.

Before the usual retorts come that I can only afford to think that way because I’m not a member of a “disaffected group”, my still living parents dealt with the Jim Crow south and my son who grew up in the suburbs all of his life still got looked at with suspicion walking around in our neighborhood.

But that doesn’t mean I want to see a dozen post a day about police brutality, BLM, the inequities in the justice system or whatever anti woke BS Trump was talking about today on HN.

What possible good discussion could come out of a post about Palestine vs Israel unless it was a technical “innovation” [sic] that one side or the other was using?

I keep a few ways to contact me in my HN profile.

I often flag submissions or comments when they go against the rules (sometimes written, sometimes unwritten) of the site.

I'm generally not willing to:

  * engage with someone who's demanding an audience for a post/comment (upset that their post/comment was flagged). 
  * justify these flags to a stranger. 
  * open myself to harassment based on what I flag.

So, if these flags become public, I'll just stop flagging. I'm sure I'm not alone. I consider this a negative outcome of making flags public.

Just some food for thought: I was recently brainstorming ideas for building a more decentralized moderation system, and one of the ideas I arrived at was using the rules themselves as part of the flagging system.

It would work like this: When you flag a post for breaking the rules, the community's guidelines will pop up. You are then asked in this window to highlight the relevant section or sections of those rules that this post has violated. And I don't mean just "select which rule was violated", I mean "use your cursor and highlight the text of the rules that were violated." (with support for highlighting multiple sections if so desired).

This serves the following functions:

1. Communicates why something was flagged (obviously).

2. Forces the person who's flagging the submission to actually read the rules.

3. The subjectivity of the highlighting system is used to make Sybil attacks more obvious. I'll explain why after this list.

4. It differentiates flagging from downvoting. Downvoting is for saying "I don't like this". Flagging is for saying "This violates our community's rules".

As to why this helps reveal Sybil attacks: There are several subjective points on what, where, and how people will highlight rules. Should punctuation be included or not? Should the key word in the rule be highlighted? The key sentence? The whole section? What about examples? Should we include them? Or only highlight them? Users operating in good faith will cluster around common points in common areas, but will have different ways of doing so. So, if a block of users all have: the same input, in the same way, clustered around the same time, then it was likely a Sybil attack.

This system doesn't require that it de-anonymize the people who submit flags, but it does provide a form of publicly visible transparency as to why something was flagged.

Edit: I forgot to make clear, you would be able to see a heat map of the rules that were highlighted for a flagged post.

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on this idea.

IMHO the problem with flagging on HN is its ability to kill a discussion thread in its infancy, preventing most users from ever seeing its existence or having the opportunity for discussion.

Flagging should be just that; a flag for the moderation team to review the submission/comment. It should not at all come with an immediate downranking of the content itself until the moderation team has reviewed the flag and upholds it as appropriately flagged.

If flagging wasn’t a simple way to kill young discussion threads and instead users had to downvote the submissions they don’t like; then discussions couldn’t be so severely impacted by a minority of users.