The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
Voting on posts and comments is like passing laws in a direct democracy.
Moderation is like a semi-permanent judiciary that can override laws passed by the electorate.
Moderation exists to override the short-term will of the electorate when it conflicts with the long-term central values of the community.
Or maybe, an easier option could be taking some time to carefully consider what exactly you consider to be self righteous so that a discussion can be had about it. More specificity in complaints typically yields a better response.
> This is what a functioning criminal justice system looks like. Meanwhile the co-founders of the opioid epidemic, which has killed at least 150,000 people, paid a few million dollars in fines. [0]
It's really inconceivable that an outcome like this Korean judgement would ever be reached in the US. 18 months of prison time for union busting? Meanwhile, the ACLU reports that Americans are being jailed to collect on medical debts [1].
Indignation isn't shallow or boring, it's the driving force behind social progress. Indeed, lack of indignation indicates either the inability to imagine a better world or perhaps the natural satisfaction with the status quo of someone who finds themself sitting on the upper rungs of society as currently structured. The latter no doubt describes many of us here.
We could have a nuanced conversation on the comparative virtues and shortcomings of the US and Korean justice systems, or we could downvote anyone who states the obvious into grey text oblivion and poo-poo them for their "shallow" indignation.
It's not intellectual sophistication to avoid mentioning pachyderms when conversing in the company of an elephant; rather, it's obtuse.
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21829200
1. https://www.aclu.org/report/pound-flesh-criminalization-priv...
>More specificity in complaints typically yields a better response.
well that's exactly why people are complaining about dangs' comment. it's basically a very generic "everything here is low quality. do better." statement with little direction as to what must be corrected.
With no direction on how to improve, but with confirmation that what they're doing is wrong, people tend to get worse.
Pointing to the rules, and then calling discussion 'shallow' isn't my idea of moderation. It's a critique. Not one I disagree with necessarily, but one that I believe is nearly pointless from a moderation standpoint. It teaches nothing, gives no example of positive behaviour, and discourages people from discourse all together -- how are they to know if what they post is worth while? Should they risk reprimand to try and be thoughtful? Maybe not.
'Do better.' as life-coaching advice has never worked.
We need 'Do better X because Y is bad.', complete with examples, rather than aloof judgements.
That's not "do better". That's an explicit condemnation of the behavior being criticized, and an explanation of why it's being criticized.
I come to HN because the discussions often include a few gems where I actually learn something new or hear a perspective I hadn’t considered.
Saying that you’re glad SK is doing this is just noise.
But instead of engaging with the ideas in my comment, you simply dismissed them as boring and insubstantial. This truly does not add much to the conversation. Next time, just downvote and move on.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
If it helps at all, such comments are even more tedious to write than they are to read: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
Here are three typical posts from before I did that:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21829235
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21829200
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21829249
And here are three typical posts from after:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21831418
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21830642
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21830707
There's simply no comparison. And there are more examples on both sides. And it has worked consistently in many cases in the past. The surprising thing is how something so simple and (in a way) annoying can have such salutary effects. It's as if it calls the hivemind back to its angel self, or something.
Indignation is a driving force in social progress. But it's the arch-enemy of intellectual curiosity. The longer I do this job, the clearer it becomes that HN is in a Manichean universe. You can have intellectual curiosity or indignation. You cannot have both at the same time. That's basically it.
If I take my moderator hemlet off, do I feel the same indignation you feel? You bet I do. But the job is not to moderate HN that way. The job is to preserve it for intellectual curiosity. That's a clear distinction. You'd be surprised how clear it is, if you spent your days looking at it from every conceivable angle.
One thing I wonder sometimes why nobody asks me, so I'll ask it here: why is this ok? Aren't the union busting, medical debt, and opioid epidemic issues—and so many more, climate change, income inequality—utterly more important than the triviality of the rest of HN? Maze-building algorithms, 1983 keyboard vs. mouse tests, and the joy of Cliff Stoll—to mention things that have gotten attention here in the last day?
The answer is yes, they are utterly more important. But would the world be better if those waves swept HN away? I don't think so. I think the world, or at least the internet, is better off with at least one forum that's focused on intellectual curiosity. And if we're going to focus on it, we'd better focus on it deliberately, because otherwise those stronger forces will sweep HN away.