Thread

1. kens · 1789860069 · focus · HN ↗

   Author here. I don't know why this popped up 13 years later, but hi :-)

   1. doginasuit · 1789866251 · focus · HN ↗

      Would you say it is still roughly the same?

      > It's unclear if these penalties result from HN administrators or from flagged articles.

      Any answers or insights on this within the last 13 years?

      1. 0xbadcafebee · 1789869337 · focus · HN ↗

         The mods are much more sensitive now to anything they consider flame-bait, flame-baiting, or controversial. Much quicker to intimidate/threaten, de-emphasize posts, flag-kill, etc. I presume because HN may be influencing/affecting some billion dollar bottom lines now and they can't afford a bad look

         1. Barbing · 1789871278 · focus · HN ↗

            > intimidate/threaten

            Links to examples?

            I see “please stop fulminating” “we’ve asked you not to do this [guideline violating behavior] and we’ll have to ban you if you keep it up”, which is gentler than [shadow]banning even with the ‘threat’ of punitive action. Assuming you’ve seen mod comments I’ve missed.

            1. 0xbadcafebee · 1789880820 · focus · HN ↗

               Yes that is what I mean. It's an intimidation couched in gentle language ("don't say things like that or else") and the threat is banning. Examples are in my past comment threads and some to my email years ago. I've gotten it for comments that weren't even controversial, it seemed the mods just disagreed with the opinion and decided to come down hard just because. I've seen it on others' comments too and had to defend them.

               Of course there are some crazy extremist comments, but I'm talking about both comments about programming, and content has been echoed by the UN general assembly or human rights organizations. Those comments are now apparently out of line. This forum has crossed into the realm of censorship normally reserved for generic corporations who remove anything that might affect ad sales.

               1. unethical_ban · 1789925911 · focus · HN ↗

                  In my experience, if someone is going to be contrarian or pivot the topic to something else or move a conversation from primarily non-political into political, they have the burden of explaining the connection to the main topic and to be exceedingly diplomatic. One-liners that go against the grain or that will generate a lot of adversarial back-and-forth get warned.

                  1. 0xbadcafebee · 1789951344 · focus · HN ↗

                     Which is a bit crazy, isn't it? Like a micromanager gone mad. They claim it's a community but it feels more like one person's plaything

                     1. unethical_ban · 1790001405 · focus · HN ↗

                        I really think it's a good thing. I think it balances the ability to allow dissent and debate while helping ensure the comment isn't flamebait. Without slashdot-style metamoderation it's the only way to keep trolls at bay. I've crossed the mods here once or twice in heated arguments, and it's almost always been a reasonable request from them to clean up my argument. Though I was unreasonably banned on my original account about 14 years ago (hence the username created in angry haste).

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.