←back to thread

1630 points dang | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.409s | source

Like everyone else, HN has been on a political binge lately. As an experiment, we're going to try something new and have a cleanse. Starting today, it's Political Detox Week on HN.

For one week, political stories are off-topic. Please flag them. Please also flag political threads on non-political stories. For our part, we'll kill such stories and threads when we see them. Then we'll watch together to see what happens.

Why? Political conflicts cause harm here. The values of Hacker News are intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation. Those things are lost when political emotions seize control. Our values are fragile—they're like plants that get forgotten, then trampled and scorched in combat. HN is a garden, politics is war by other means, and war and gardening don't mix.

Worse, these harsher patterns can spread through the rest of the culture, threatening the community as a whole. A detox week seems like a good way to strengthen the immune system and to see how HN functions under altered conditions.

Why don't we have some politics but discuss it in thoughtful ways? Well, that's exactly what the HN guidelines call for, but it's insufficient to stop people from flaming each other when political conflicts activate the primitive brain. Under such conditions, we become tribal creatures, not intellectually curious ones. We can't be both at the same time.

A community like HN deteriorates when new developments dilute or poison what it originally stood for. We don't want that to happen, so let's all get clear on what this site is for. What Hacker News is: a place for stories that gratify intellectual curiosity and civil, substantive comments. What it is not: a political, ideological, national, racial, or religious battlefield.

Have at this in the thread and if you have concerns we'll try to allay them. This really is an experiment; we don't have an opinion yet about longer-term changes. Our hope is that we can learn together by watching what happens when we try something new.

Show context
politician ◴[] No.13109129[source]
Hi dang. About 45m ago, I added a comment [1] in the Amazon GO mega-thread that mentions the concept of religion. Is this comment acceptable per new policy?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108455

(Aside: I believe that this detox experiment is treading on dangerous ground, that it will be a struggle to contain the amount of censorship that will happen as a result of encouraging people to flag each other in this way, and that the effects will linger beyond the 1 week time limit.)

replies(2): >>13109192 #>>13113278 #
anonbanker ◴[] No.13109192[source]
I'm not a mod, but I wouldn't flag your comment. Mentioning faith-based alternatives for human interaction may not be 100% on-topic, but it isn't political or divisive.

Now, if you had recommended one faith/sect over others for a superior experience of human interaction, then maybe you'd have a problem.

replies(2): >>13109691 #>>13110752 #
1. politician ◴[] No.13109691[source]
This detox experiment calls for all members of the community to police all comments for all mentions of the censored concepts.

Regardless of whether a given comment is OK now, once this detox experiment gains steam will anyone be able to mention anything about any of the designated concepts under the anxious eyes of a newly deputized membership?

(I'm specifically thinking about the 99th percentile of moderation activity given the large number of people on the site and the fact that neutral opinions are not counted by the current voting system.)

Or, will these sorts of down votes be weighted? And if so, by what? Using the karma system doesn't seem appropriate - there are many well-spoken members on HN that hold wildly different, even antagonistic, viewpoints.

What inhibits abusive moderation activity of the sort observed when a CTR-like group was actively manipulating /r/politics?

replies(1): >>13109943 #
2. anonbanker ◴[] No.13109943[source]
Ah, the "Slippery Slope" fallacy. I can't prove you wrong, but time might be able to.

the downvotes will likely not be weighted. flagged comments will likely have +3 karma as much as they have -3 karma. at least, that's the hope of a 1-week moratorium, right?

To answer your question, the only thing stopping the abusive meta-moderation activity are the two mods here. So long as the posts otherwise meet the posting guidelines, they'll likely remain unmoderated. If they're not flagged, they might not even pop up on the moderator's radar.

Basically, it is up to you to point the mods at things that may or may not be abusive. Which I guess answers your question.