(I feel like "everything" is now "political" and thus not wanted here. Since Musk for instance now is a political figure, one cannot discuss X even when not a partisan topic about X. Or when some guy does big swoops that affect tech world wide, it's also not possible to discuss here. And I miss it, because I think HN is full of great people and I would like your take on these events.)
basically anything DOGE gets automatically flagged by someone, even though it's very much in the realm of technology. yes it intersects with politics, but most tech discussions do these days
"An Unfolding Scientific Revolution in Cosmology" seems to be uncontentious in itself but that it is on economicsfromthetopdown.com raises a question about why it is there at all. Also there seems to be little that is newsworthy in it.
I’m glad the flagging system exists on HN but I think it could do with improvements. I think it would be interesting to be able to see how many flags an item has gotten and who has flagged it.
There’s a clear pattern to items that get flagged (those that are critical of right wing causes in particular, Musk, DOGE, ICE etc) despite those topics generating a lot of discussion. It would be interesting to have clearer visibility into whether this kind of thing is spontaneous or whether there is a core group of power users censoring topics they dislike.
Hacker News has a silent majority that works tirelessly to keep this site relatively free of ads disguised as articles and political news. I hope it stays that way. I'm just completely tired of those political echo chamber articles, even when I happen to agree with them.
I never understood the "flag" option on HN. Usually "flag" means to flag as inappropriate - porn, obvious spam, etc.
But, is it meant to be used as "downvote"? i.e. "I don't want to see this topic" or "I disagree with this opinion?". I guess the equivalent here is just lack of an upvote?
There seems to be a variety feedback that mean different things... e.g. sometimes I would like to say "I strongly disagree with this opinion", but I don't want to say "This shouldn't be on HN".
Ok, so let's think about this. If we were to make a "hacker news for politics", how would we do that? It would have to be moderated, what would be the rules? Who wants to do it?
22 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 40.5 ms ] threadPreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39230513
Not hard to believe at all. While I don't flag any posts. I have no interest in LLM related content.
I also actively use AI tools btw. It's just tiring seeing everything with AI suffix including monitors.
So many important tech related debates lately being silenced by mass flagging. Luckily they remain in https://news.ycombinator.com/active
(I feel like "everything" is now "political" and thus not wanted here. Since Musk for instance now is a political figure, one cannot discuss X even when not a partisan topic about X. Or when some guy does big swoops that affect tech world wide, it's also not possible to discuss here. And I miss it, because I think HN is full of great people and I would like your take on these events.)
[0]: https://github.com/vitoplantamura/HackerNewsRemovals/blob/ma... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46503199
You’ve done a remarkably good job maintaining the quality of the community - we appreciate you.
Newsworthiness is not a criteria, officially; it's intellectual curiosity. A FPP could talk about Newton's Laws, which would not be newsworthy.
sometime I have the feeling having a username that ends with "xx" does not help much :)
There’s a clear pattern to items that get flagged (those that are critical of right wing causes in particular, Musk, DOGE, ICE etc) despite those topics generating a lot of discussion. It would be interesting to have clearer visibility into whether this kind of thing is spontaneous or whether there is a core group of power users censoring topics they dislike.
But, is it meant to be used as "downvote"? i.e. "I don't want to see this topic" or "I disagree with this opinion?". I guess the equivalent here is just lack of an upvote?
There seems to be a variety feedback that mean different things... e.g. sometimes I would like to say "I strongly disagree with this opinion", but I don't want to say "This shouldn't be on HN".
Most would jump at the chance to make "a few dollars more" on people-exploiting projects than beneficial enabling ones.
I tried, and never crossed that line. I advocated open source but never contributed. That was probably good for open source.
I'm trying to be objective here, while the thread does go fiesta politico at times.
I participate at two sites, both heavily moderated, in order to learn and to do good when possible. It's additive. Bullshit and rage are subtractive.