Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This post is being downvoted but it's a well known feature of HN that heated discussion are immediately flagged and they disappear very quickly

If a platform wants people to engage but don't want people to be passionate about their beliefs, it is not a discussion platform, it's a walled garden for a certain type of opinions.

Does it make discussions better? probably, if you already agree with the rules or can (or want) to follow them.

What if you can't?

What if a topic is divisive because on HN people refuse to acknowledge that the general view on HN is simply wrong?

Nobody will ever know.

Imagine a person going to a vegan restaurant asking for a steak. How long will it take to get kicked out?

That's a feature, if you are vegan, but it's not desirable for every restaurant, especially if they want (or like) to serve a broad range of customers.

Of course HN can say that this is exactly what they want, but what about the discussion about "is what they want right?"

I'm talking about HN because one of the post mentioned it like a good example of a free and open platform, but a platform that bans users for talking about politics is not really a good example of good moderation.

Moderation should happen on the receiving side, when it happens on the publisher's side it's called editing.

Any news outlets has editorial boards, there's nothing wrong about it, but it should be clear that the opinions expressed on an editorialised platform are not free.

Decentralisation has, among the many downsides, the advantage of being controlled by the party who receive the content, not the one who generates it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: