I don’t know how many times I have to beat this drum but good communities that people want to spend time in are heavily moderated.
Free speech bros (who don’t actually really believe in it) have yet to create an attractive platform that doesn’t have moderation.
Moderation is key and what some people consider “heavy handed moderation” makes for a nice place to hang out. Without it HN would languish as people with interesting things to add are driven off by the people who think they have a right to say whatever they want anywhere they want to say it.
I think the 'free speech bros' characterization is this particular case might even be overly charitable, considering that OP appears to have created this account solely to make this post. I suspect they may lean more toward commercial interests and less toward ideological ones.
Things improve by banging on them periodically and seeing what falls off. There's a difference between unethical behavior and just pushing the limits of something with the hope it is improved. Then there's flat out trolling...
From what I've noticed, free speech advocacy isn't really about "allowing everything" but more about not applying more censorship than what is necessary and not doing it arbitrarily. HN does quite well in this regard - there are principles in running the site which are adhered to and which are required to keep the community from deteriorating into social media-quality discourse.
For example, banning someone only for not liking their views is obviously legal and permitted almost everywhere, but a site/forum doing that doesn't adhere to the principles of free speech then. Which they don't necessarily have to do, but that's what free speech advocates are fighting for - for more places to adopt the conduct of not doing that.
> From what I've noticed, free speech advocacy isn't really about "allowing everything" but more about not applying more censorship than what is necessary and not doing it arbitrarily.
That's a nice phrasing but it doesn't hold up to what I've seen at all. Everyone has a different definition of what is "necessary" and anyone that gets (shadow-)banned is going to scream "Censorship!". I've moderated communities and watched this happen enough times to know.
There simply is no objective way to handle it, it's always going to subjective and there will always be false positives. The alternative is a hellscape.
HN has rules it adheres to but if someone finds a loophole or continues to walk "right up to the line" they probably aren't going to be around for long. I tried moderating a community once completely to the "letter of the law" and it turned out horribly. People abused that and drove off people who were kind and had interesting things to contribute. What was left was a few people who stuck it out and a bunch of trolls who knew they could get away with it.
I think the alternative is not a hellscape. The alternative is a clear, specific, transparent, rule-based moderation. In particular, I think that it's best to control the "temperature" of the discussion (even if subjectively), but keep the topics of the discussion completely open. Why would people not be allowed to discuss certain things, if these things gain enough traction? Instead, you could just control the temperature: banning the usage of bad words, personal attacks, etc...
The first rule of creating any system is remember that 'everyone' is smarter than you. The problem with rule based moderation quickly boils down to the Sortie's Paradox. Everyone that is smarter than you will quickly find logical contradictions in your system based on the uncertainty of language and your system collapses in the meta argument.
When defining a rule based system, remember the problem space is enormous, potentially even unbounded. As your number of rules grow the number of conflicting rules will increase.
Then there are some things like politics that low temperature conversations are near impossible in already...
I completely agree and that's what I was trying to say with the "right up to the line" part but you explained it more succinctly and clearly, thank you.
In addition, not every discussion/content belongs everywhere. I've seen "well if people upvote it then they like it and it should stay" argument made before and I've also seen it fail. Memes, jokes, or the more extreme example, porn, might get upvotes but that doesn't mean it belongs in a certain community. That's not to say any of those things are bad or don't have a place but not every place needs to cater to or allow them.
Some people want spaces to hang out that don't discuss politics and/or want to stay laser-focused on a certain topic and that's ok but some people see that and scream "censorship!". What it really comes down to is that person wants to say whatever _they_ want to say, but they certainly don't want a real "free speech zone" because that would drive them away too in the end. No, they want an exception to the rule for themselves and when they don't get it they cry foul.
Unless you're planning to demand your users only use one particular language only a well defined subset of it.
Using a theory as a comparison is generally a pretty poor example as we have no universal theory that defines everything, instead they are targeted at only a small slice of 'something'. Language has a larger scope than that.
> Language is not rigorous and logically correct.
Unless you're planning to demand your users only use one particular language only a well defined subset of it.
The objective way of doing it is free speech is only if government[1]. Anything else goes. I do think that companies which are essentially infrastructure/utilitity providers (cloudflare, aws, etc.) should also be considered government in this case.
I kind of agree, but at the same time, this line of thinking falls a bit flat IMO. There used to be certain social norms in the past, which are debatable to be helpful or not, but which used to define what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. Today, those norms are disappearing/being deconstructed (which is generally a good thing), but there is no replacement! In theory it is fine that everyone has the rights to express everything / boycott anything / not associate with anyone, but on a societal level, this doesn't work very well if not kept within bounds. This is noticeable in the level of polarisation - there are no norms to be respectful or try to listen to the other person - so people don't. Same with the right of association - it's fine that the law is that you can disassociate with/discriminate against anyone who doesn't belong to a specific protected group, but this means that if a significant part of powerful entities collude to suppress something, then that thing will be suppressed without any legal or social remedy. This has a destabilising effect on society as people are more and more drawn into their 'camp' where they preach to the choir and actively root out-group or non-conformist behaviour out.
I think this kind of reads like a rant, so I apologise for the wording and the formatting. My thoughts are not entirely clear and structured on the topic so I can't do any better right now.
an ISP is a utility. they're just, like, the phone company, man. i don't need them telling me what i can see, or say, and to them its all mostly the same anyway.
HN is not, and they can certainly ban what they want.
> From what I've noticed, free speech advocacy isn't really about "allowing everything" but more about not applying more censorship than what is necessary and not doing it arbitrarily.
That is what I kept reading from "free speech advocates", especially regarding Twitter etc. - those same people are now largely either silent or actively cheering on the same happening in regards to the other side right now. This is the fatal flaw with this definition: "not applying more censorship than what is necessary and not doing it arbitrarily" does not mean the same thing to all people, and it seems that the counter-mainstream doesn't give the mainstream more leeway. So is there some way this could be done without the pendulum just swinging fully the opposite way?
>[...] not doing it arbitrarily. HN does quite well in this regard [...]
Hard disagree on the arbitrary part. What's considered "intellectual" or "curious conversation" depends entirely on dang's personal preference.
For example every time a Steve Jobs thread is posted, there inevitably are two major themes:
1. People fawning over how great a leader Steve allegedly was, despite his flaws
2. People going on about how Steve was a massive douchebag, in spite of his success with Apple
Neither of those topics are interesting, novel, or intellectually gratifying but only #2 is reliably censored by dang. CEO worship is on-topic here but criticism of those CEOs is apparently "not interesting".
While I've not done it, I'd suggest building a histogram of comments/articles about Steve and see where the numbers fall. Especially in relation to comments that are deemed inflammatory.
If you've ever ran a site of any size you will eventually find out there are some discussions that lead to a plethora of moderative actions because the user base (or trolls in it) cannot behave and disrupt the community. And while this may be unfair to you, a completely reasonable person capable of handling polite online discussion, the unreasonable discussions are unfair to those who do not want a flame war ever 3 post, and unfair to the administrative burden the moderators must shoulder.
Well I have run a few sizeable communities (albeit smaller than HN) in my day and it seems to me the correct approach is "no posting about Steve Jobs at all" rather than "only Steve Jobs worship is allowed".
Depends on what you are looking for. Less moderated sites like 8chan drift heavily to the extreme political right and even into illegal stuff, but if that's your cup of tea you'll find a pretty active community there. It's just the liberal and scientific sites that need to weed out the crackpots, but that is an endless uphill battle.
My concern is liberal and scientific communities have a history of looking the other way at Marxist violence.
I wish I didn't need to choose which genocide deniers I'll have to cater to.
You can switch "showdead" setting to "yes", and look for posts marked "[dead]" in https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (though those also can be from shadow-banned users, not based on domain only).
Even if the list were public, its enforcement will still involve a million subtle decisions that you have no hope of ever personally litigating with anything approaching fairness, but the moderators' jobs would be much harder because you can bet that every bad faith actor on that list would rush to clog up the forum with "informal appeals."
You shouldn't trust anything online, but also remember that the intent of bad actors is to ensure that you lose any trust with the firehose of falsehood.
It could very well be detrimental to release the list. More transparency does not necessarily mean better. Not everyone is an adult, not every adult behaves like an adult. As an adult myself, I have not seen mod behavior that would lead me to believe that there is some sordid conspiracy. Let alone start demanding this place start publishing their private lists that make this corner of the internet not a hellscape.
How are we better off with this list being secret and being kept away from us? Are you saying that we are better off not knowing what’s in this list? Why?
Because it would cause largely pointless discussions about the content of the list. Maybe you feel like "yourpointofview.com" has really compelling content that you would like to discuss. The HN moderation team thinks it does not and ultimately it's their call.
Do you think professional spammers don't know they are on the list? I don't buy this for a second. They will immediately see that their posts are not showing up.
I think professional spammers have no idea what news.ycombinator.com is, besides an entry in a huge list of domains in their database, and would not take the time to implement a custom tool to check whether their posts are successfully getting through here. It's just a numbers game for them.
You and I have no idea how HN spam detection works - that's literally what you appear to be frustrated about.
Maybe they detect that the person is visiting from the same set of IPs and show the post even while logged out. (I strongly suspect that similar measures are in place to prevent bigco employees from mass upvoting their latest press release.)
Maybe they use browser fingerprinting somehow.
Ultimately it doesn't matter - dang et al. are going to do what seems to work for them to reduce their own workload and keep this place working as they want it to. If you don't like it there are many unmoderated forums to participate in.
>If you don't like it there are many unmoderated forums to participate in.
Classic reddit deflection whenever moderation is questioned. I'd rather at least try to start a dialouge before moving camp yet again. That shouldn't be my first instinct whenever some ruling I disagree with arises.
OP’s comment is better suited to be taken in reference to the amount of domains banned rather than the “secrecy” of the list. I’m interested in how users are worse off with regards to anything by not knowing what sites are banned.
This is a straw man argument. The issue isn't the potential presence of moderation, but the potential lack of transparency and the problems that could bring.
Good systems are designed to work by taking into account human weaknesses. The current HN system doesn't do this.
Transparency sounds nice, but in practice doesn't that just mean, "Teaching the bad actors how to be better at what they do?" Maybe that works for a giant like Facebook, but how can it work on a site with very few dedicated mods?
What about the experience of using this site would be improved by that transparency? Compare those pros to the known cons and make a case.
> Transparency sounds nice, but in practice doesn't that just mean, "Teaching the bad actors how to be better at what they do?"
This argument doesn't make sense in this context. Publicly providing which domains are blocked wouldn't give a bad actor any useful information that they can't already figure out by trying to submit their links.
The area where this kind of argument makes a little sense is in terms of complicated algorithms. For instance, there's an argument for not disclosing the exact formula that Google uses to rank sites because everybody will try and game that specific system and then the algorithm because less useful.
But simply knowing which sites are blocked doesn't reveal any info that bad actors don't know, and serves the public interest by allowing people to know if censorship or moderation mistakes are happening.
>What about the experience of using this site would be improved by that transparency?
- I'd know what not to post and not waste my time using that source if I want to share content here.
- If it's breaking news I can find an alternative source, and if it was removed than I can argue I used an alternative source because the primary source is banned.
- If a major site is banned, peer review can at least start a dialouge to understand why that site is banned. It may not result in a change but a site that seeks to "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" should also be willing to indulge in the curiosity of how the site is run.
If we stopped doing things in fear of bad actors, the internet would have long shut down.
There appears to be at least one news web site, with 100MM+ monthly visits, that could not appear in the HN submissions. It's very clearly not a spam site. Obviously I don't know that, but it appears that it may be on the spam list. How would we know if this serves community well?
You can just say "Fox News", no need to be less than transparent about it. As far as why that site is considered to be contrary to the basic tenets of "intellectualism" and "curiosity"... well...
I think Breitbart might be what is referenced here. And this may or may not be the best decision for the quality of HN, but I think it would (and should) raise an eyebrow and bring up concerns about bias if there's a pattern about which media outlets get blocked.
But forget hot-button politics for a second and lets talk about commerce. Big money makes people do dumb things. YCombinator as we all know dabbles in a lot of big businesses. How do we know that somebody here is not putting their thumb on the scale of discourse and harming their competitors? Transparency here would be great to more fully trust that the businesses that do or don't get attention here aren't getting it through bad practices.
1) It should go without saying that there is nothing that prevents anybody from falsely labeling a group they don't like as "spam" even if they were not actually spamming.
2) Even if "spam" from a particular organization exists, it doesn't necessarily imply that they were the ones doing the spamming. Even in the pre-AI era it would be pretty trivial for even 1 dedicated person with too much time on their hands to try and create a bunch of fake accounts on a site and spam a particular domain in order to try and get it blocked.
I do agree that in general case heavy moderation is preferable and most shitty communities are shitty because of too little moderation, not to much. But the rest of your reasoning gets destroyed by the fact that 4chan is, despite its age, infamy and continuous slide into lunacy, still an order of magnitude more popular website than HN and for a number of purposes, still the best community on the internet.
Can you explain what makes you see 4chan as "for a number of purposes, still the best community on the internet." The only purpose I can see being argued for is porn. For what other purposes is 4chan the best community? What makes 4chan the best community in these instances?
4chan maintains an up to date brief snapshot of internet consensus on represented topics. If I'm not interested in reading walls of text, watching 20 minute youtube essays, trying to discern genuine review from blog spam or infomercial, or doing 3 pass statistical analysis on rating aggregator as it's being brigaded by 3 different parties, and just want to find out what's good/bad/current - I don't really know any other place to go.
I'm not even sure if I can name 67,000 websites, so it's still a shocking number. Simultaneously, it does slightly worry me that the list isn't published should I end up submitting a "legitmate" link that is never seen.
From what I've learned here on HN someone who thinks that "free speech" is absolute - their right to free speech outshines the personal rights of others. So instead of discussing where my rights end and your rights start, they will argue that no line should be drawn.
In addition, from what I understand, they seem to think that democracy is a consequence of "free speech", not the other way around.
Not sure I understand your post, both spam and threats are speech (at least in the US), so maybe something was lost in translation?
Here are some of the limits of free speech in the US:
> Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.
And here some examples from Germany (translated via DeepL):
> the protection of personal honour against insult or defamation, the disclosure of information classified as secret, the limits of morality and the protection of minors, the limits of public safety, unfair competition by discrediting the goods or services of a competitor, the unauthorised disclosure of copyrighted information, racial discrimination
Someone who believes that because we can't tell some kinds of good speech from some kinds of bad speech, we should give up trying.
It makes about as much sense as eating a moldy blue cheese once, enjoying it[1], and deciding that from now on, you won't turn your nose at eating whatever putrescent, rotting garbage is put in front of you, regardless of how sick it makes you.
----
Less charitably?
Someone who can very much tell the difference between good and bad speech, but is cynically promoting bad speech, for selfish reasons.
[1] Despite a general understanding that moldy food is not suitable for eating.
It will provide you with a rough frame of taking this argument to an extreme, by demonstrating that various groups of people need to set some kind of non-zero, practical limits for behaviours they permit.
This particular group of people sets very particular, practical limits for those behaviours, enforced by the moderation team.
You don't think 'bro' is gendered? It was a charitable interpretation. You think it's the permissible form of sexism.
The paradox of tolerance is what I'm operating off of too. My conclusion is that you can't hate the hateful without being hateful yourself. What's your conclusion? That you're always automatically on the right side so it's okay to be intolerant? Where's the paradox for you? It's a 'you can't have your cake and eat it too' thing. What are you giving up, exactly?
You shift very subtly from talking about beliefs to behaviors here. I'm specifically asking about beliefs, because the behavior in question here is the expression of beliefs. You're speaking out here against a group. Why shouldn't you be deplatformed? Why should we tolerate your intolerance?
>The paradox of tolerance is what I'm operating off of too. My conclusion is that you can't hate the hateful without being hateful yourself. What's your conclusion? That you're always automatically on the right side so it's okay to be intolerant?
You don't seem to understand what the paradox of tolerance is. You're also creating a strawman. No one thinks hate is inherently bad. Lots of people deserve to be hated for their actions. What people are opposed to is hate for people's immutable characteristics, backgrounds, or harmless life choices.
>You're speaking out here against a group. Why shouldn't you be deplatformed? Why should we tolerate your intolerance?
I'm not OP but it's because we're humans with brains who can make distinctions between groups that have odious opinion and those who don't.
Your arguments are really basic and if you're really curious you could spend some time reading about this subject instead of making arguments that would sound profound to a college freshman.
I think hate is inherently bad. People who hate will come to experience it as the truth. That's where you're at. You don't address my arguments, you just create more groups of people to hate and to feel better than-- people without brains, people who make basic arguments, college freshmen. You don't have any arguments, just more groups of people to put down. Bigotry is literally how you've come to think. You can see it right here in your post.
I don't care if you hate me, by some old group definition or by something you've just made up, and you need way worse insults for me to hate you back.
Cool, I don't really believe you, but if that's the case, you're in the extreme (nonexistant) minority
>People who hate will come to experience it as the truth.
Literally every human who has ever lived hates things. I think you probably perceive what you're saying as profound, but it's actually meaningless. I hate Nazis for the Holocaust. I'm not coming "to experience it as the truth". I hate them because it is the truth.
>You don't address my arguments, you just create more groups of people to hate and to feel better than
LOL yes I did. You can reject basic reality, but I did address your "arguments"
> don't care if you hate me, by some old group definition or by something you've just made up, and you need way worse insults for me to hate you back
Bro bro, your victim complex is out of control Did you somehow skip to a later part of your canned argument? What makes you think I hate you? I can guess that you're probably a youngish radicalized white guy, but I don't know enough about you to hate you. Can you stop trying to manufacture drama and focus on doing something productive?
No, the majority of people understand hate is bad. It's an innate understanding, not a taught thing. Everyone understands that the experience of hate is bad because, as you said, everyone goes through it. People go back to it because disgust and anger are addictive. The stories they tell afterwards are the rationalizations of an addict.
It seems like you really intensely agree with me on the experiencing-hate-as-truth thing. So I will just leave that there.
You hate those groups you are assigning me to, or else you wouldn't be using them as an insult. Like you said, you don't know me. Your insults reveal only information about you.
I mean this in the nicest, most sincere way possible. I don't know you, but I've met you a thousand times. As a middle-aged white guy, I was also a young white guy on the internet.
I encourage you to broaden your horizons. Get off the internet and read some long-form books. Your position isn't profound or even interesting. Your basic assumptions are wrong and no matter what flowery language you use to dress it up, it's still a silly juvenile argument.
After I go outside and read "long-form books" (lol), I'm supposed to then understand that hate is the truth? You've fumed impotently like this at a thousand people before? This is the most ridiculous thread.
I think a good number of us here, myself included, fell for this trap at some point. It appeals to the "simple solutions" part of our brains and is very black/white thinking. Thankfully most of us grew out of it, others... well yeah.
I wouldn't call it a "trap," I think fairness and simplicity are perfectly reasonable goals to aspire to. It's just that in this case I have seen an abundance of evidence that people start to jump ship long before a max-fair judicial process starts to correct the course, so it is a highly unfortunate fact of the universe that a good captain must have an itchy trigger finger on the ban button with all the false positives and collateral damage that entails.
I don't really mind this, it's an open secret that discourse on HN is deejay'd behind the scenes by the mod team and I think it helps set this site above all the rest.
The exact mechanisms by which this moderation is accomplished need not be public, that's the balance between the secret part versus the open part.
If you browse new enough you’ll see vaguely topical spam. Every once in a while you see completely off topic spam (ie “$$$ Learn to sell home made soap $$$”).
It’s way too easy to sign up and submit for spam to not be an issue. Of course there is a blacklist of some sort.
Don't forget to subscribe to their newsletter spammed in the "article" they linked where the mention over and over about their startup they are working on.
I don't like the line of reasoning because "spam abuse" is the boogeyman of the technical internet. You can justify requiring real life credentials to "combat spam", and that is exactly what Meta does and how they spin the PR. Twitter/X just rate limited the top 5 largest site under "spam/scraping concerns".
Spam is annoying but it is like piracy: short of moderating every single piece of user submitted content, it is a game of cat and mouse, and the mouse has infinite time and nigh infinite resources. I don't think sacrificing honesty is a good compromise for this game.
IMO, 'dang & Co does a pretty good job at maintaining hygiene here on HN.
“You can justify requiring real life credentials to ‘combat spam’”
Yes, some would indeed make such an argument. But that’s not what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about a list of banned domains. That’s very far from requiring ID for the members of HN.
Somewhat ironically, given how much we talk on this site about FOSS, HN categorically is not FOSS and it does not pretend to be. There are many little behaviors (such as quiet score adjustments) that the admins put in place in order to avoid the Eternal September. If those behaviors were public knowledge, I imagine that they wouldn't really work.
If news like this bothers you, well, then stop giving HN your traffic and go use Lemmy instead :)
the only thing that bothers me about hn is that it doesn't let you delete posts so it gets annoying having to rotate accounts as you slowly dox yourself by revealing more and more info
for a social website where so many users are privacy advocates this is surprising to me
yes you can email dang or whatever but that is like having to phone up to cancel an online subscription, dark pattern friction bs
I’ve actually been doxxed from Hn comments and it wasn’t pleasant (although I don’t make a huge effort to hide my identity).
Having said that I think it would be a much different site if comments could be freely removed. So I’m okay with the friction of having to email a human to get your stuff removed.
HN is a forum, but also a valuable information resource. If it were easy to delete your historical comments, a lot of that information would be lost. If you make a contribution to a Wikipedia page, do you expect to be able to delete it?
I know HN is not Wikipedia, but it is also not like Facebook, in the sense that one can actually learn useful things on HN.
I've seen it here and there and have extensions for that. It's no Reddit, but far from perfect. Especially once you start poking at a few specific topics (some expected and practically universally controversial, others more "tailored" towards a technical community).
You can collapse threads, and the setting will hold until the post is about 2 weeks old (at which point it's locked from further comments).
I am doing this with ... somewhat increasing frequency.
It's probably possible to use Greasemonkey or similar to provide client-side JS for blocking users, though that would be cumbersome. Some of the alternate HN front-ends may also offer this.
You can't reliably email to request it. Their policy is that if you request your comments to be deleted, they will only delete some minority of them if there is a reason to that they like
I don't agree with flagging this post, it seems like an important discussion based on the large amount of activity.
As for my own views, I think it's fine that the list isn't public, it doesn't make much difference either way. I appreciate knowing that there's a list of banned sites.
My attempt at constructive feedback would be to have some place where a transparency report on moderation activity is shared. Not everything needs to be public nor immediately updated, I trust @dang's discretion on deciding what should be shared. But maybe it would be more ideal if there was a single place where you could find out that there is a moderated domain blacklist, rather than finding out through a random comment.
Overall I'm happy with HN's moderation and wouldn't want to impose too much of a burden on the team.
It was correctly flagged because there was already a huge discussion about this in another thread, which this one is simply pointing to. I didn't even see the current submission until a few minutes ago, and I commented extensively in the other thread, answering every question I saw.
We don't want this sort of meta HN-eating-its-own-tail (I'll use that metaphor instead of the more vulgar one which came to mind first) in general, which is why submissions to news.ycombinator.com itself are banned on HN. This one shouldn't have been vouched for.
I genuinely wish Xitter were added to this list since they started playing games with login walls.
It’s annoying when an interesting headline comes up but the URL points to twitter.com, so it’s not worth clicking on to discover whether the site will let me read today.
There’s Nitter but it seems to be a whack-a-mole target that only sometimes works.
I've love to see the list for curiosities sake, but I imagine a solid 90% of it is either porn, or scam sites.
HN has good moderation unlike a lot of communities, Reddit included. The community has changed over the years, but it's still more tolerable than most and I'm happy with how it's moderated.
That's fair, but in that case I will find a new place with good moderation by a BDFL.
There exists no unmoderated (or barely moderated) community on the web of similar size to hacker news on which would want to spend significant time. There are no working alternatives, therefore the hypothetical possibility of a BDFL turning bad is irrelevant to my decision making.
Anyone moderately surprised by this is either a) naive or b) a spammer (or could be both as well) or a troll maybe
And of course never had to moderate/care for abuse for anything more than a personal blog (and I mean, even then)
Yes I'm sure HN is worse off for not allowing half-brained spam sites or some random dude's opinion piece with 3 readers that permanently live in a basement or something
Understood. I've skimmed over the thread and I admit I was wrong. For what it's worth, thank you for convincing me to take a second look and remove the flag.
On the other hand, I feel a technical audience should understand the importance of peer review. I don't like the idea of stifling conversation because "trolls will ruin it". Yes, you can apply that as a blanket deflection of any sort of decision.
Because it invites people to game the system. There are plenty of free lists and they overlap significantly. I'm pretty sure their intersection is also very similar to the core of the HN list.
You can do A/B tests to figure out what sorts of behaviors ride the line of triggering bans vs what kinds of behaviors result in an outright ban. It lets you optimize for just-trash-enough to not get banned, which is not a desirable end state for users.
> pretty easy to see when they don't get traction / get flagged automatically.
or they may think the content itself is the problem and spend resources trying to tweak it.
I think an analogous situation would be saying if the username/email is valid when there is a failed logged in attempt. Its a very minor thing but why give someone who is trying to abuse the system any help?
>or they may think the content itself is the problem and spend resources trying to tweak it.
A spam site knows it's a spam site. It's already tweaking domains and thats why the list is so big. It's relatively easy to buy new domains.
For the remaining 5-10% of legitimate sites I imagine HN isn't enough of a draw to care about tweaking content. They will save that level of curation for the Twitters, Facebooks, and maybe reddits in some cases.
>I think an analogous situation would be saying if the username/email is valid when there is a failed logged in attempt. Its a very minor thing but why give someone who is trying to abuse the system any help?
It does bring up the honest question of "how much do you inconvinence honest users in order to punish dishonest users"? And honestly it's a bit tiring to keep being assumed that I'm a dishonest user. If you trust me so little as to give an IQ test just to let me post a link (reducto ad absurdum), why would I bother as an honest user? Meanwhile the dishonest users will simply work around that or hire some cheap labor.
I think they just don't check. They just post to as many sites as they can. It's high volume, low reward. HN also has a small readership with a limited interest, so it's not likely to be a spammer's top priority.
The vast majority of all posts get ~0 traction. Even prolific posters of highly-upvoted links like todsacerdoti* are probably only getting around 1 in 10 to the frontpage at all, let alone for a meaningful period of time.
Have you ever checked /new? Not getting any traction is the default, not an exception. Plenty of submissions end up with no upvotes and very few clicks, hence plausible denyability.
HN has a lot of successful low quality submissions. I'm sure one about the curiosity of this domain existing, redirecting to this site, and having its whois hide the owner, could be a successful low quality submission. But the HN guidelines make it clear that having a lot of mildly entertaining low-quality submissions isn't a goal. It's just a part of being a fairly open community.
Domain ownership and the domain market, and wondering how much someone paid for a domain, is a topic that has been done over and over again here and the ownership of hackernews.com is unlikely to generate a worthwhile for the community at large insight, and someone could use a text post for that.
Better would be a bottom-up approach where individual users can make block lists -- of sites and other users -- and freely share the lists with other users, who can adopt them with changes.
It's good to have a reminder now and then that some people have no clue how much work goes into effectively moderating a community to keep it functional.
Yeah, of course HN bans a ton of sites. I'm glad they do and I trust the mods to maintain that list correctly. If I feel they are banning sites unnecessarily I'll leave but so far I see no evidence of it.
The fact that many domains are banned should be more obvious. I would even say much of the list should be publicized, since I can't imagine it revealing sources and methods of blocking.
I agree with the stance that this is necessary though, to filter out spam and low effort/misinfo/blatantly scumbag sites from cluttering the front page.
I believe archive.org is one of the sites because I tried to post an economist link using it to circumvent the paywall once and the post seemed to be shadow deleted
And this is exactly why it's good to have dialouge about the list. If only to identiy edge cases like this. HN is fine posting old links, but sometimes old links die.
As someone who has also had it on for ~10 years, couple exceptions I'd add:
- New accounts (or long-dormant accounts that suddenly post). I presume there's some kind of filter they're tripping. I try to "vouch" these every time I see them, if they're contributing.
- Good comment, but when I click into their history, they have enough rightfully-flagged-to-dead comments, that it makes sense.
Very occasionally (like <1 in 1000) I'll come across a comment that is dead, and their history makes it look like they've been making good comments without realizing they're dead. I also click vouch on these.
I really hate how hostile the modern internet is to a new user. Nothing more discouraging and gate-keeping than wanting to share your knowledge and then suddenly nothing you post or comment passes through.
It's also ironic how other circles of the internet seem to yearn for "original" contnent, but moderation only allows content from the typical same 10 websites.
There is a wider split between quality. The ones who know they are dead don't expect replies so that does affect their style of posting. Civility is overrated
Not really. I also keep showdead on. The only quality comments there are occasional glimmers of brilliance from single-issue ranters who are otherwise excruciatingly tiresome in their monotonous pursuits.
I subscribe to HN with "showdead" enabled and have for years. Maybe ... once every month or few I find a comment that really shouldn't have been killed. I'll tick the "vouch" link, or for particular head-scratchers, email the mods.
Most often it's new accounts ("greens") which have tripped an automated filter.
Many times though the comments are from banned sockpuppet profiles (repeat registrations by the same person or organisation), according to moderator responses.
(Tracking user history back to a moderator admonishment is ... difficult. In particular, it's not possible to search for comments in response to a specific user. If I could search for "by:dang in-reponse-to:banned_profile" that'd be easier. I suspect mods have better tools.)
I prefer Show Dead as well, but it's definitely not the case that the commenters there are insightful. Every once in a blue moon I see a dead comment that is a shame is dead, but it is very very rare.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of insightful dead comments I have read in the past year (and I read all the dead comments I come across). The vast, vast majority of dead posts deserve it.
I don’t know how many times I have to beat this drum but good communities that people want to spend time in are heavily moderated.
Free speech bros (who don’t actually really believe in it) have yet to create an attractive platform that doesn’t have moderation.
Moderation is key and what some people consider “heavy handed moderation” makes for a nice place to hang out. Without it HN would languish as people with interesting things to add are driven off by the people who think they have a right to say whatever they want anywhere they want to say it.