I'm honestly really shocked by your stance on this. Regardless of whether or not this information is credible, this seems like text book flame war kindling. In the past, I've thought HN's policy of "you can discuss things like this in other forums" was wise and I've been corrected by it myself many times. Why wouldn't that apply in this case?
One thing that makes this distinct from much of said kindling is that it hasn't been reported on before. This isn't someone coming into an unrelated comment thread and commenting "9/11 was an inside job!"
I would encourage any who disagree to consider truly why this reporting upsets them.
I'm sure there are countless examples of "breaking" stories that were appropriately shot down by the flagging system. What I don't understand is why that flagging system should be short circuited in this case. HN users often flag stories like this because political discussions almost always devolve into useless flame wars. Again, I don't see why a conversation about this story would be any different. And I'm especially surprised to see this take by @dang, who seems to be forgetting his years of forum moderating experience in this case.
HN is not in a position to determine the success of breaking news and this story fits the mold of things that are usually flagged. Let other credible media sources start picking up on the story if it turns out to amount to anything. Before then, let this one die just as the others like it do on HN.
I'm not even sure it's an "alternative" hypothesis - it's sort of the obvious conclusion, in terms of means, motive and opportunity, that the US sabotaged the pipeline. I bet a poll of US citizens would show a clear majority believe the US to be the culprit, but a minority have a problem with it. And so you get this situation where everyone kind of accepts the truth but different people have varying levels of enthusiasm for publicly arguing about it.
Even extending to the international community (which is generally a reflection of American politics, much to the chagrin of Europeans who are unwilling to admit it), there is mixed levels of enthusiasm for getting to the truth. The countries are all anti-Russia, and so the pipeline sabotage is generally seen as a "good thing" except by the countries with direct profit motive for it. However, those countries aren't about to publicly accuse US intelligence of carrying out the operation, because their relationship with US intelligence is too important to lose, especially given all the weapons and intelligence they provide.
I was extremely mystified by a BBC world report on it a day after making no mention of the US but instead theorizing about russian sabotage.
It just seemed inexplicable to me at the time because of Biden's prior remarks. In that light I can't see how anyone wouldn't immediately assume the US didn't do it-- the US hadn't even denied it at the time!
I get really upset when claims are made without evidence to support them. It might be a moral failing of mine, but for some reason I really loathe when assertions are made without evidence.
One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.
> Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”
"This is ... complete fiction." is a claim that the story was fabricated. I think it's worth examining who would be doing that fabrication and what they would have to gain, especially considering who is making the counter-claim and what they would have to gain from that.
>One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.
Are you familiar with Christopher Hitchens? That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.
Maybe it's because I see a distinction between "dismiss" and "deny". Where someone might dismiss ("There is no evidence to back up these claims") there are instead denials ("They made this up"). Anyway, I don't mean to change your mind, just to provide a different perspective.
I think there's a trivial semantic difference between the two terms. The assertion that someone made up a story is the logical conclusion to the assertion that there is no evidence to back up their claims.
I don't see the difference as so trivial. Using my previous statements, "There is no evidence to back up these claims" is an observation which allows for the listener to draw their own conclusion and "They made this up" is a conclusion that's being asserted.
> The assertion that someone made up a story is the logical conclusion to the assertion that there is no evidence to back up their claims.
It is a logical conclusion. One might still arrive at a different logical conclusion.
I see. For instance, it might not have been them who made it up, it could have been someone else.
However, given all of the information known at the time, there's little evidence to suggest that anyone aside from them was responsible for the assertions without evidence, which again leads to the same logical conclusion.
> That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.
Maybe you're not familiar with the practice of journalism where anonymous sources are routine, and have successfully uncovered a great deal of misconduct by governments. Reserve skepticism of course, but dismissal of a routine practice with a proven track record is not justified.
This seems to be an Appeal to Ethos. I don't think that would be justified. Additionally, making unsupported claims is just that. Anyone could anonymously claim anything, but we don't give the same credence to every claim. There's many different ways to support a claim, telling who exactly told you isn't the only path towards supporting a claim.
> Additionally, making unsupported claims is just that. Anyone could anonymously claim anything, but we don't give the same credence to every claim
Right, and these claims are being made by an award winning journalist with a proven track record who has a source. That deserves more credence than just "anyone" making any claim. Not enough to accept it as truth, but far more than claims that can be outright dismissed as you initially claimed.
I assert that you are a Russian agent personally appointed by Vladimir Putin, paid $250,000 through a bank in the Cayman Islands, tasked with sowing discord in the US by posting fictitious stories on Hacker News.
> I think it's worth examining who would be doing that fabrication and what they would have to gain
Sure. Russia and geopolitical destabilization
> who is making the counter-claim and what they would have to gain from that
This part doesn't make sense to me - the accused party naturally is the one making the "counter-claim", and naturally they will make "counter assertions" without evidence - how do you disprove an unfalsifiable claim?
I overall don't think your comments really align. "The US has done bad things in the past" doesn't mean "all accusations of bad things pointed at the US should be treated with credibility and have to be disproved with an ironclad case by the US to not garner further suspicion"
Amusing you should say that given that the author is literally a 9/11 truther (truther light maybe, but still)[0]. Hersh has clearly become a gullible mark the past decade or so who lets otherwise justified skepticism of US policy curdle into useful idiocy.
Because it's interesting. Hersh reporting on it is an interesting story in its own right. Is what he says true? I have no idea. We don't have a truth meter here.
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that you can't take the human being out of the moderator, nor would it be good to try. No in the sense that I'm not moderating HN just according to my personal interests—it would be very different if I did. As a matter of fact, I spend every day denying my own preferences about HN. That doesn't make me objective (far from it), but I do at least have a lot of practice.
It's a matter of striking a balance: holding space for what the community finds interesting* while allowing for a certain amount of idiosyncracy and unpredictability, but not too much. Without that, things would be more humdrum and therefore less interesting. There are tradeoffs along every conceivable axis with this thing.
* (note: community is not the same as commenters because most readers don't comment)
> community is not the same as commenters because most readers don't comment
Do you have stats on what percent of regular HN readers have ever commented on any story? Or are stats more like, for every 100 readers of a story, 1 will comment on that story? To put another way: if I read 100 stories and comment on 1, would I be counted as lurking 99 times and posting 1?
Basically, I'm curious if engagement is lopsided toward lurking because some users never comment, or because most users never comment on every story they read.
Yes, moderators moderate this site. This has been true from the beginning, 15+ years ago.
Your comment suggests an assumption that without moderation, the ranking system would indicate "what is interesting to everyone". That assumption isn't just wrong, it's super wrong. Here are some past comments about that, if anyone cares: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... The short version is that without moderation, the site would be dominated by the same few hot stories repeated ad nauseum, plus an endless supply of riler-uppers. This is no way to optimize for what is interesting to everyone. As I said elsewhere in a reply to you, there are tradeoffs along every axis of this thing.
The number of attempts to either shame or coerce him into doing things the way you think should be done, versus what he thinks is appropriate -- seems childish to me.
>The level of engagement seems to indicate there is interest
Far more heat than light being generated though, though. Which is predictable with this kind of story, raising emotion is part of the desired outcome of posting it (1). "interest" in baseless speculation and conspiratorial thinking is not a good thing.
Standards are slipping, that this story is protected.
But we do have a proofen and working mechanism: Flagging. If the submission doesn't get flagged, cool. If it does, it does. I don't see a reason to intervene here.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. The flagging system works well, arguably better than the upvoting system does, but you can't just rely on these systems in an unsupervised way—it leads to suboptimal outcomes. Another way of putting this is that moderation is necessary to jig the software+community systems out of their failure modes.
You can of course argue that I've made a wrong call in this case, but the point I'm making here is different: you need moderators who make judgment calls, including to override flags sometimes. And of course no one is ever going to get the calls 100% right; we have failure modes too.
I see far more bickering over whether or not this article is appropriate than actual discussion of the article, which is unfortunate. Unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed, but there's no requirement to do so. The NS2 destruction itself is a notable story, and it's worth discussing as resource dependence is important.
