Can someone explain what is going on with this? Some recent examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42904200
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42903336
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42895453
You can mail such questions to hn@ycombinator.com although this one has been addressed in some of the recent mod comments.
The reason such things get flagged has less to do with Musk but with the fact that HN isn't really a current events/news discussion site. It's porous - some things are big and/or interesting enough to get front page coverage but the tick tock of everyday news stories is mostly offtopic and people tend to enforce that with their flags.
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
Most things are in some way connected to politics and power and they're regularly discussed here, along with their political implications and power dynamics. That still doesn't mean every news story is worth discussing here given that it's a forum with the explicit goal of not discussing most news stories.
Look away from what? Musk and his antics show up in threads regularly. But it can't be on the front page 5 times a day. There's an article discussing current admin shenanigans on the fp right now.
The problem is that so much of the tech industry is now precisely about politics and power. The problem is that so much of the tech industry it is now explicitly and directly connected to it.
If Hacker News doesn't have the wherewithal to face up the these realities then it really should think about a name change.
I don't understand what that's supposed to be denying. I'm just explaining how HN works. The connection between tech and politics is hardly new and it's discussed on HN all the time. I mentioned there is a current events discussion on the front page right now and I got it wrong - there are two, and that's not counting the many places these topics come up in other threads. I just don't see how you arrive at this 'looking away' business. Not having a thread for every Elon Musk goosestep is not 'looking away', it's just no the sort of place that has a thread for every Elon Musk goosestep.
With no undue disrespect, you just got here. Might want to give it a bit of time so the working part makes more sense. You haven't as much as responded to anything written here beside repeating the same somewhat unclear and seemingly inaccurate thing (there is current events political discussion on HN right this second) over and over.
I've come out of self imposed retirement from the shitshow that this site has become just to point out that how long you have been here doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the quality of your contribution.
OP is right in that HN uses the 'it's been flagged' excuse to avoid facing some very uncomfortable truths, and that is fractionally why the world is currently being destabilized to a degree that we have not seen in the last 90 years or so. We - all of us - in the tech world are part and parcel and in many ways instrumental in this, and dare I say guilty as well. We're chasing the $ but we're losing sight of our impact on the world.
I has a lot to do with the quality of your contribution if your contribution is telling others how the site works. It's complicated and full of written and unwritten conventions. It takes a while to figure out. Of course new users and their new perspectives deserve a hearing but the perspective here seems to be 'I don't like this' and the argument supporting it appears to be simply repetition while remaining entirely unresponsive to any counterpoints. Maybe I missed it but I really see no evidence the person I'm talking to as much as looked at any of the linked stuff or made much of an effort to formulate some kind of response.
You'd hope so. But I'm not convinced it is without a lot more research, HN and by extension YC have made a pretty big mark on the tech world so there is a fair chance that the negative influence (or what could have been positive influence) is outsized as well. Keep in mind that many billions of $ have passed through the hands of the people on this forum.
> how long you have been here doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the quality of your contribution.
Perhaps not. But a 22-day-old account saying, over and over, "this site should be something else" is... a bit tone-deaf? A bit presumptuous? You don't show up in our community and immediately tell us that the whole purpose of our community should be what you demand. ("You" meaning zfg, not jacquesm.)
Fair but I don't think account age should be left isolated when discussing these things and saying 'you just showed up' for a genuine - and frankly, long overdue - discussion on a pretty pressing issue is out of place if we are supposed to be the 'better alternative'. The time for sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending everything is great is long past and given HN's own issues with finding the balance between doing our jobs, aiming for something better and doing so responsibly we should be very wary of falling into the trap that allows us to pretend nothing is going on because all relevant discussions get flagged. That's abdication and the tech world is super good at this.
zfg raises a valid point. So either debate them on merit or let it go (downvote, move on, whatever) but don't pull rank without engaging the actual subject matter. They are pointing out that HN does not work in this sense and it is - at least to me - abundantly clear that they have a point. For myself, I've given up. I've seen the most idiotic exchanges go without counter because I suspect more people have given up. zfg has not given up, yet, in part because they have just joined. They are still in the honeymoon phase and probably can't imagine why HN would be actively discouraging discussion around some of the most important issues facing the tech world today.
You're welcome to agree with zfg's point and argue its merits. They certainly haven't so that might be an improvement. Dismissing mine as 'pulling rank' is just rude and lame. I've engaged with this person over a whole bunch of comments, I've tried to be clear and reasonably polite. I certainly didn't expect you to 'come of out retirement' to be a jerk to me - it doesn't seem worth it beside being totally out of line.
Does anyone have anything new to say on these topics? We're going around and around in circles. Is there a substantial discussion? Do we learn anything new?
Cutting the size and scope of government programs and regulations has more in common with the founding principles of individualist liberalism than collectivist authoritarian ideologies like National Socialism.
I would wager that, "Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist" isn't something new to this site or online discussions generally. To the contrary it is a tired trope. It does not inform us or stimulate a new discussion.
Therefore, before making such comparisons, the accusers should have substantial evidence. The burden of proof should be much higher than your article's, "Appears to make gesture".
"Appears"??? It's on fucking videotape! Are you saying his arm was actually down by his side all the time, and it just "appears" as if he's raising it? (Perspective? Refraction? Water will find its level?)
And "gesture"??? Pray tell, what fucking "gesture" is that he "appears" to be making, and why are you resorting to "gesture" in stead of acknowledging what exactly it is we're talking about?
As someone said in a nearby sub-thread, ~[1]"many of his weird sycophants seem to be on HN"...
Yes, the Guardian article linked above used the phrase, "appears to". Apparently they were not comfortable being more explicit than that. You may find the article helps to understand the context of the discussion of the article.
They also went on to cite the ADL to define the gesture. However, the ADL was explicit in their interpretation:
>It seems that @elonmusk made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute, but again, we appreciate that people are on edge.
>In this moment, all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath. This is a new beginning. Let’s hope for healing and work toward unity in the months and years ahead.
I dislike Elon for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion. Certainly not a "sycophant". There's a fair amount of reducto-ad-hiterlum going around HN right now. I hope more reasonable rhetoric can prevail.
Maybe so. But I still don't have to talk about it here. There's lots of places to talk about politics, and Musk, ad nauseum. HN is supposed to be about something else.
Politics may be destroying a large number of things right now; I don't want it to destroy this site too.
It may be falling short of what you think it should be. A bunch of the rest of us don't think that, though.
You may feel strongly about what you think we should do, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what the site should be about. You don't get to tear up the community guidelines and write your own.
Let HN be what it is. If that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does.
> It may be falling short of what you think it should be.
It may not be falling short of what you think it should be.
> A bunch of the rest of us don't think that, though.
And if a bunch of us do think that, what then?
> You may feel strongly about what you think we should do, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what the site should be about.
Sure, but neither does anyone else. Like, ehm, you.
> You don't get to tear up the community guidelines and write your own.
What if many of us think they might need a few changes? What if most of us do? I mean, you seem to be arguing on the assumption that nobody, or at least almost nobody, does. Do you have any statistics to back that up?
> Let HN be what it is.
(At the risk of sounding somewhat Clintonian:) So what "is" HN?
If you're going to say "What it's always been!", then... No. It already isn't. Becasuse nothing ever is "what it's always been". Eternal constants don't exist; everything changes all the time. (Guy I used to know back in Ephesus used to say that.) HN now is already something very different than what we got user IDs on back in 2013, and it ain't gonna stop changing. So where were you with your resistance to change for the last dozen years or so?
> If that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does.
"Just because the Democratic Party is actually advocating labour camps for capitalists and mandatory sex change operations for everybody now is no reason for you to demand it should change! Let it be what it is, and if that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does!"
"Just because the Republican Party is actually advocating concentration camps for immigrants and mandatory megachurch membership for everybody now is no reason for you to demand it should change! Let it be what it is, and if that doesn't match what you want, go find somewhere else that does!"
See how ridiculous that is? So no, that's not how any of this works.
> unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon
I guess the second coming of Nazism to an unprecedented scale and without any serious opposition anywhere is 1/ uninteresting and 2/ absolutely irrelevant to tech.
I mean, it does seem that Musk stories get flagged way more rapidly than other Trump misbehaviour stories; in practice I suspect that a certain amount of the user base is comprised of his weird sycophants.
As said elsewhere about aversion to some current events topics etc, it's also not entirely flagging off the face of the earth. In some of those examples you shared, they had a hundred upvotes and numerous comments - that's not nothing. That's hundreds of ppl that saw the story and/or engaged, before maybe the discussion devolved leading to more flagging. Other examples with high activity current event stories are just duplicates and there are other submissions of the same/similar story that are getting eyeballs (and maybe also eventually being flagged but they're there anyway). Stuff moves fast around here, but all is not lost.
1. HN's readers perform most of the site moderation, directly through votes, flags, and vouches, and indirectly through discussions on posts. Somewhat counterintuitively, posts which gather a high number of comments may get penalised if comments exceed votes, by an automated "flamewar detector" heuristic. This (and flags) can be turned off by HN's mods if requested. Such requests (and other meta / moderation questions) are best directed by email to hn@ycombinator.com. See guidelines here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42922791>. More: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>.
2. There are a few additional automated adjustments, most notably site penalties and "Major Ongoing Topics" (MOCs) which attract a large number of submission may also have a penalty applied. Frequently dang will make mention of this, though you can email queries as well. See: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42911011>.
3. Where mods do get actively involved, it's generally to reverse or disable such automated actions, or user-applied flags. The automated systems work well most but not all of the time. (It's taken me some time, and a fair bit of analysis of HN, to reach this conclusion. The system's not perfect, but it's pretty good.)
4. On account of 1) above, there are topics which HN has difficulty discussing reasonably, and many of those are political. Generally, if a topic strongly divides a large fraction of readers, you'll find that posts and many comments tend to get flagged and/or downvoted (comments only). If you suspect this is abusive or is preventing cogent points from getting made, email mods.
Keep in mind too that there may be people who find any discussion of Musk on HN to be tedious and flag on that basis. Reading intent on flagging is at best a highly approximate pastime.
I didn't flag those articles. Discussions of Musk devolve into partisan hyperbole. I'm indifferent on him generally. Many of the discussions become unhinged and absurd. When I attempt to illustrate how extreme some of the hyperbole is, my own comments are generally flagged or downvoted into oblivion. Those who make extreme claims without substance are celebrated. This suggests that a reasonable discussion is not possible on some of these contentious topics.
I also understand that the HN algo has a feature where flamewar-esque threads can trigger flagging of the entire article.
You've submitted 8 generic news articles just in the last 24 hours or so. Do you believe all of them should have had a separate discussion? That would be nearly one third of the HN front page. In that period there were at least two such threads there with plenty of hang time. That might not be enough for you but it's hardly some conspiracy of silence.
The reason such things get flagged has less to do with Musk but with the fact that HN isn't really a current events/news discussion site. It's porous - some things are big and/or interesting enough to get front page coverage but the tick tock of everyday news stories is mostly offtopic and people tend to enforce that with their flags.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901248
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901317
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42896490
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42776410