I replied to the original tweet too ("what would you do if you were Jack Dorsey?"). I said I'd shut the whole thing down.
I replied to the original tweet too ("what would you do if you were Jack Dorsey?"). I said I'd shut the whole thing down.
Unfortunately, these extremely contradictory subjective images of HN seem to be a consequence of its structure, being non-siloed: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... This creates a paradox where precisely because the site is less divisive it feels more divisive—in the sense that it feels to people like it is dominated by their enemies, whoever their enemies may be. That's extremely bad for community, and I don't know what to do about it, other than post a version of this comment every time it comes up.
Thanks for caring about level-headeness, in any case.
I mean, I agree with you that we all have biases and blind spots in our perception. Which means... so do the mods. I comment because I want HN to continue to be a site that people like me want to comment on. The site that "people whose comments dang likes" want to comment on surely looks different.
But I think your explanation of why this is is much too simplistic. The difference seems to be that you aren't being bombarded every day with utterly contradictory extremely strong feelings about how awful it is. If you were, you wouldn't be able to write what you just posted. Your judgment that the perception "isn't symmetric" is wildly out of line with what I encounter here, so one of us must be dealing with an extremely skewed sample. Perhaps you read more HN posts and talk to a wider variety of people about HN than I do. From my perspective, the links below are typical—and there are countless more where these came from. Of course, there are also countless links claiming exactly the opposite, but since you already believe that, they aren't the medicine in this case. I sample that list when responding to commenters who see things this way:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23729568
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17197581
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23429442
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20438487
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032682
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19471335
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15937781
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21627676
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15388778
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20956287
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15585780
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=BetterThanSlave
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=slamdance
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15307915
A sample email, for a change of pace: "It's clear ycombinator is clearly culling right-wing opinions and thoughts. The only opinions allowed to remain on the site are left wing [...] What a fucking joke your site has become."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20202305
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18664482
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397133
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15546533
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15752730
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20645202
I wonder if you've got a plan for the knowledge and information you're accumulating related to the function and moderation of hn, and sites like it. Have you written about your experience moderating hn?
I haven't written much about my experience moderating HN. Occasionally little blobs squeeze out under pressure. Also, I'm not sure I could describe it very well. It might take more of a novelist's skill to explain the experience. I'd probably just use a lot of words like "surreal" that don't say anything, or come up with metaphors that are good for venting but again, don't really explain much.
What I do want to do is distill the moderation explanations I've posted over the years into a sort of expanded FAQ or commentary. If anyone has noticed how often I post HN Search links to past explanations (which I hope is not too annoying), that's because the explanations have converged over the years, on I'd guess at least a couple dozen different significant issues. Things like how we moderate politics on HN, how it's not ok to insinuate astroturfing, how we handle reposts, and so on.
Here's one to add to your list from today (now flagged dead) that I thought was particularly surreal in its logic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23808107. It's short, so I'll just quote it in full:
Hacker News pays close attention to the content on the main page. They purge anything that doesn't trend left leaning or counters the standard left's corporate interests.
For example, I posted a link to Michael Moore's film in which he eviscerates bio-fuels. This post was mysteriously removed. It was also removed the second time I posted it. This was despite the link the "A year wearing shorts to work" as another HN article link at the time continued to exist.
A link to a Micheal Moore (the quintessential 90's leftist documentarian) film "eviscerating bio-fuels" is "mysteriously removed", but a fluff piece about shorts remains: Collect underpants, ?, profit!
On top of all that the forum is skittish about embracing controversial political topics in general, because many people would prefer to just talk about tech.
Why wouldn't HN users flag some Michael Moore content to oblivion?
What is wrong with this? I'm a far cry from a Silicon Valley liberal, and nothing's wrong with it that I can see. There is no One Forum To Rule Them All, and there shouldn't be. Let a thousand forums bloom their own way.
The one thing I'd like to see is a franchise model based on HN - this place pays just enough attention to civility and topicality to promote good discussion without feeling Orwellian. If only that magic could somehow be replicated.
I mostly agree with you, there's nothing wrong with it. What's happening is the same thing that goes on everywhere in social media. People projecting their worldviews, opinions, and believing that their opinions are special and The One view that should prevail. That they should have a right to be heard everywhere, that their opinions should carry weight everywhere (regardless of the forum).
It's like we're dealing with a very emotionally & intellectually spoiled generation, brats. The everyone gets a trophy generation. People that can't accept that their opinions don't govern the universe and are not important everywhere; nor are all opinions equally important everywhere. Social media has warped all of that severely. It's almost like it has deluded a mass of people into thinking their opinion broadcast inside of their home/space, has (or should have) the same weight when broadcast outside to the world and that the two should be given the same kind of consideration.
I think this is a very common logic failure. They're unable to mentally separate concepts effectively. In my observation very few people actually invest into thinking, how to think, how to use logic, how to reason. It takes a lot of effort to get good at it.
Critically people need to learn that their opinions do not always matter and are not valuable all the time. It's a concept that the woke, cancel culture generation can't tolerate. I think the US culture needs a hefty dose of this right now: your opinion is not as important as you think it is; your feelings are not that important; feelings are not more important than facts.
It really is the fragile, coddled generation. They can't live with the notion of the lack of their importance. It makes perfect sense though, it's also the hyper narcissistic selfie / influencer generation. It all goes together.