> "HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups."
Something along these lines is often-cited, but isn't supported by the guidelines or by comments by the moderators.
From the guidelines:
> "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
Discussions on contentious issues very quickly devolve on HN: it's not built to support them well, and many members recognize that. You're right, these are important issues and they should be discussed, but HN empirically has not been proven to be a good place to do so. And rehashing the same arguments time and again is almost the definition of not interesting.
Your posting via a throwaway account is anecdotal evidence of this. That's not a judgment, that's just a reflection of how it is. Likewise your assumption that curation on HN is due to "an ideologically possessed social justice minority": that's not a assumption that engenders the foundation of good faith that discussion on contentious topics desperately needs. Regardless of other factors at play that make discussions like this difficult (and I agree they're myriad), this is one that is destructive, rather than constructive.
And please don't confuse this stance as normative. Hopefully we'll figure out better ways to use things like online forums for working through issues, but we haven't done that yet. Want to have better, deeper discussions on difficult topics? One thing you can do yourself is conduct yourself in a manner that makes that possible. Build a reputation with a regular account so people can trust that you're engaging in good faith, and assume that people are behaving reasonably for reasons that may not be clear to you or you may disagree with before deciding that they're unreasonable.
That’s very reasonable. Maybe there are new functionality that can be implemented to at least bring back to the frontpage flagged articles of interest to the majority?
I think there needs to be a punishment function for ideologically motivated flagging and maybe even other actions done by such a minority, so that it cause the articles to stay on the frontpage longer when brought back in order to dissuade the behavior.
There's already such functionality, for both of the things you mention: emailing the mods to bring it to their attention. The mods have been known to disable flags for submissions.
That said, bringing up again "ideologically motivated flagging" ignores other reasons people may be flagging, such as the belief that such discussions aren't constructive on HN, independent of one's ideological or political position. And the mods do punish those that abuse flags and votes and submissions and comments. (And many who are so penalized think it's applied unfairly to them, from every ideological persuasion. Or that it's done ideologically rather than for incivility or other abuse.)
Here's how I'd break down my position in a nutshell:
- These are important topics.
- These are topics I think need to be discussed.
- HN empirically has not been a place where such topics have been interestingly and constructvely discussed.
∴ Such topics are for the most part best discussed elsewhere (i.e., not HN).
What I read from your comment is that you think these topics should be discussed (which I agree with) and should be discussed on HN, which I don't because I don't think that HN is structurally fit to handle such discussions.
So, with that, I think there are two questions that I would like you to address:
- Do you think HN as it is now is the place to constructively have these discussions?
If you answer yes to this question, then you and I disagree, and as I noted upstream, I think the evidence is on my side. If you answer no, the next question is
- Do you think HN should be a place to constructively have these discussions?
If you answer yes, what would make HN a place where such discussions could take place? There are certain things I think are criticial to being able to discuss contentious topics constructivelly. Those include being able to identify over time the people you're engaged in discussion with. This doens't mean know absolutely: pseodonyms are fine. However, you can't get very deep into a discussion on contentious issues if you aren't able to take others on good faith, and you can't do that without establishing some kind of reputation. Repeatedly using throwaways works against this.
Likewise, there needs to be a common understanding of civility. The definition of civility isn't universal, and changes from forum to forum (both online and in real life). There's quite a bit of disagreement on HN of what constitutes civil behavior, which again makes it difficult to dig into contentious discussions constructively: a shared understanding of civility allows people to engage on equal footing. This isn't a failure of any one group or perspective. It's just a reflection of human nature. This isn't different from real life: there are some topics you discuss with your family, others with your friends (and different groups of friends), others at work. Each has their own norms that allows those different topics to be discussed constructively.
It also means that that each point shouldn't be relitigated again and again. That sucks all the air out of the room and gets in the way of people having interesting discussions on a whole host of other interesting, non-contentious topics which HN explicitly has as a goal. This is really no different than if every discussion boiled down to a language flamewar or similar repetition. It's not healthy for the forum.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but I think it captures some of the important characteristics that make constructive discussion on contentious topics possible. You may disagree.
HN, for better or worse, isn't built like that. It wouldn't be HN if it were substantially different. I'd love to see a forum that makes such discussions possible. I don't expect (nor necessarily want) HN to be that place.
Each of these is getting longer than the last, so I'll try to refrain from commenting more on this, at least until I find a publisher. ;)
> Do you think HN as it is now is the place to constructively have these discussions?
I see your point about the fitness of a platform for challenging the prevailing viewpoints in Silicon Valley, and for making sure that people can develop rapport and reputation that makes them accountable. Those are all great points.
We would agree fully if HN banned all articles on contentious topics or unapologetically allowed all viewpoints with all the mess that brings.
Where I think we differ is what the right action is when highlighting a viewpoint that cause social dissonance. My opinion is that giving the stage only to people that shout the loudest when opposing viewpoints speak is a terrible choice, as in general the most extreme people are the loudest and I doubt those represent the majority. We gave the stage to the extremes in communism and fascism, and it didn't end so well. We do not need to repeat that experiment again.
While I appreciated your clarity with regards to the instant dead-ing, I think your response here shows a disconnect with the reality of taking a position counter to the status quo on many of these issues.
To associate viewpoints with your real identity that regularly involve a spectrum of mob justice and workplace dismissals seems foolish in the current climate. If you doubt such a climate, I'd ask you to examine the post which you un-deaded, observe that it is now re-flagged and re-dead, and I'd ask you honestly if you as a moderator think that is justified.
Even on my primary account wherein I substantial reputation, I would not touch threads like this with a ten foot pole, let alone express my honest opinions. My livelihood is far too important to risk even over a topic which I consider as worthy of discussion as this.
I'd also address your statement that this is "the same argument time and again". This (OP) is material evidence coming out that adds critical depth to an issue that thus far has been painted as very uni-directional, and is, in my opinion, going to influence the next N years of tech workplace culture in dramatic ways. If HackerNews can't handle this well, why can't we take this as impetus to think deeply about that? (With the additional datapoint that discussions "on this topic" that support the status quo seem to be maintained, whereas those that oppose it vanish, so I might suggest the topic itself spawning unproductive discussions isn't the problem)
Something along these lines is often-cited, but isn't supported by the guidelines or by comments by the moderators.
From the guidelines:
> "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Discussions on contentious issues very quickly devolve on HN: it's not built to support them well, and many members recognize that. You're right, these are important issues and they should be discussed, but HN empirically has not been proven to be a good place to do so. And rehashing the same arguments time and again is almost the definition of not interesting.
Your posting via a throwaway account is anecdotal evidence of this. That's not a judgment, that's just a reflection of how it is. Likewise your assumption that curation on HN is due to "an ideologically possessed social justice minority": that's not a assumption that engenders the foundation of good faith that discussion on contentious topics desperately needs. Regardless of other factors at play that make discussions like this difficult (and I agree they're myriad), this is one that is destructive, rather than constructive.
And please don't confuse this stance as normative. Hopefully we'll figure out better ways to use things like online forums for working through issues, but we haven't done that yet. Want to have better, deeper discussions on difficult topics? One thing you can do yourself is conduct yourself in a manner that makes that possible. Build a reputation with a regular account so people can trust that you're engaging in good faith, and assume that people are behaving reasonably for reasons that may not be clear to you or you may disagree with before deciding that they're unreasonable.