←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
dang ◴[] No.34712496[source]
All: Whether he is right or not or one likes him or not, Hersh reporting on this counts as significant new information (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...), so I've turned off the flags on this submission.

If you're going to comment in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidlelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." We don't want political or nationalistic flamewar here, and any substantive point can be made without it.

replies(21): >>34712914 #>>34712943 #>>34712970 #>>34713108 #>>34713117 #>>34713129 #>>34713157 #>>34713159 #>>34713244 #>>34713412 #>>34713419 #>>34713491 #>>34713823 #>>34713938 #>>34714182 #>>34714703 #>>34714882 #>>34715435 #>>34715469 #>>34716015 #>>34724637 #
torstenvl ◴[] No.34712914[source]
Dan, I respectfully ask you to reconsider. This is a poorly-sourced speculative piece of propaganda and clearly goes against site guidelines.

You repeat, above, that HN is not for nationalist flamewar, and requires substance. But this post is nationalist flamewar and isn't substantive. Allowing it while shutting down similar content from the opposite perspective is... unsettling.

replies(7): >>34712927 #>>34713140 #>>34713585 #>>34713625 #>>34714682 #>>34716142 #>>34727712 #
dang ◴[] No.34713585[source]
I'll read the article and reconsider. I haven't had time to even look at it yet. The moderation call here isn't based on agreeing, disagreeing, liking, or disliking. It just seems like an obvious interesting event, that's all.

Edit: Ok, I've read the first half and looked over the second half, and I think the moderation call was the correct one. Not saying this to pile on; I just wanted to report back.

replies(7): >>34713929 #>>34714160 #>>34714241 #>>34715321 #>>34716269 #>>34716962 #>>34728894 #
hoffs ◴[] No.34716962[source]
Try reading it instead of skimming
replies(1): >>34717473 #
dang ◴[] No.34717473[source]
I read the first half and looked over the second half. Do you think I missed something that would change the moderation call here? If so, what?
replies(2): >>34717728 #>>34719112 #
mzs ◴[] No.34717728[source]
factual errors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34714741

But also just look at what happened here in the comments. It's totally predictable. Those of us that read the article and flagged the post had prevented this. In this case flagging had worked and was not abused.

replies(1): >>34720367 #
1. dang ◴[] No.34720367[source]
Whatever factual errors that comment claims to have found, they're not material to the moderation call here, which is the question I was asking.

I don't think the comments were as disastrous as you suggest. It's true that the majority were negative, but not all—and in any case, it's important that HN's front page not just be a product of majoritarian sentiment. If it were, then we would clearly be failing the core principle of HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

Did I pick the right hill to die on at the hands of the majority? Maybe not, but (a) the sentiments would be the same if I had; and (b) we have to take some chances; if we don't, we fail for sure.