It’s not about whether the person knows or not. It’s more about that the person can’t believe this is happening even if it follows all the norms that we’re all supposed to know about, apparently.
In other words, just because such a system could be used in this way, is it good that it is being used this way? That’s the energy this is coming from.
But I agree with your premise, even in its snark, none of us are stupid - we should already know.
Because they are long-running discussions, it’s not repetitive. When we allow Rust or JS threads to keep popping up, it’s because we evolve with the topic over time and continuously discuss it.
What the HN shadow mod team is doing is killing the possibility of a long-running, evolving discourse on important topics.
Rust and JS threads are on topic for the site, most current events stuff is not.
is killing the possibility of a long-running, evolving discourse on important topics.
These topics have been the most discussed topics on HN the last couple of months by a massive margin. The quality of 'discourse' has been abysmal so we know empirically the 'evolution' theory/hope is misplaced.
> These topics have been the most discussed topics on HN the last couple of months by a massive margin.
Have any of these topics managed to not be censored via flagging? From my perspective, I have very much wanted to talk about these things on HN and despite checking multiple times a day I have never been able to engage in an ongoing discussion (by which I mean the post wasn't removed from the front page due to flagging, effectively limiting the visibility it would otherwise get from organic upvotes).
You're entitled to dislike these topics and to flag them. And I'm entitled to think you're actively making HN worse with your gatekeeping. The problem with flagging is it gives more weight to a smaller group. I don't know the weighing exactly, but I'd guess flagging is 10-100x more effective than regular voting. So in theory just 1-10% of people have the ability to censor topics they don't like. Kinda seems like the antithesis of what's "interesting" to me. And yes, I absolutely 100% would prefer contentious "go fuck yourself" arguments on politics than not being allowed to discuss it in good faith at all.
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
The "smaller group" here is anyone with over 500 karma. You're going to have to find some other place to have "contentious go-fuck-yourself arguments" --- about literally anything --- because they are anathema to curious conversation, which is the overriding goal of this site. That goal isn't changing just because we're all activated about politics right now, just like it wasn't in 2017.
We just fundamentally disagree. From my perspective you are the antithesis of curious conversation by censoring topics you don't want to discuss. I don't want to read the latest update on some dumb framework but I don't flag the post.
So then it's not an equal flagging vs equal upvoting, it's fewer flags by fewer people being able to derail a post off the front page which may have been upvoted by 10x or 100x as many people as flagged it.
The fact that it's easy to get the ability to flag just makes it easier to abuse by people who want to censor certain topics.
It's worked this way for 1,492 years (in Internet years) and mostly for the best. When stories get flagged inappropriately, you email Dan, and he usually fixes it. Seems good to me.
Because it's very longstanding precedent, you're going to have to do more than just notice it out loud for the first time to change it.
For what it's worth, I didn't just not flag this story, or even just upvote it; I submitted it (and was beaten to the punch). It's a good HN story! But I can absolutely understand why the Trump-Story-Flaggers would have reflexively flagged this story. These threads are incredibly tedious and corrosive to the community.
I realize this website has operated more or less the same for a long time. But as it becomes increasingly popular it's going to become a bigger target for abuse by people wanting to push a narrative. I'm just commenting on why it's been more frustrating for me lately than it has in the past.
There is no correct answer to this problem. I'm just critiquing it in its current form and explaining why, to me (and many other people who have complained about it recently), it's getting worse.
Another thing it's been it's been for a long time is "increasingly popular". If anything, groupthink and common narrative are easier on a smaller site.
There's this strain of navel gazing on this size where people think that they talk about productive shit and this is somehow a better site than other social media sites because 'we don't talk about politics or celebrities, we talk about curiousity!'
But people on HN upvote and argue about California zoning laws or San Francisco drug policy here, AI policies from the US federal government or the DMA from the EU. Or the SLS rocket. It's all politics.
Sam Altman and PG are the celebrities here, not the Kardashians and people never stop talking about poops on San Francisco streets as if this is an important issue for the US or international community of the site.
'political' is just used as a euphemism for 'taboo' and there are many unspoken taboos about what is talked and not talked about here.
I'll tell you the new argument about this dynamic -- the US is tanking hard and the influence of sites like HN is going to wane and will inevitably be replaced by European sites.
People outside of the bay area and outside of the US are tired of this crap.
> I'll tell you the new argument about this dynamic -- the US is tanking hard and the influence of sites like HN is going to wane and will inevitably be replaced by European sites.
I'd much prefer it be replaced by something led/focused/moderated out of the Global South....if I didn't loathe the idea of doing content moderation myself, maybe I'd fire up a HN-clone marketed in those other regions...
I'm totally down with that, I just think that it will probably originate from Europe because of inertia with money.
If anything it'll be from some middle ground in that it will originate from a country like Estonia that has a lot going on with startups and the whole digital democracy thing figured out.
Don't threaten me with a good time! I'd love it if there were more places like HN. I like Lobsters, but it's too insular. Start Euro-HN!
I think Dan is an amazing moderator, one of the all-time greats, but there are lots of different moderation arrangements that can work, and different goals for forums to have. What I like are forums! Not just this forum.
These stories have been on the front page multiple times, yes.
You're entitled to dislike these topics and to flag them. And I'm entitled to think you're actively making HN worse with your gatekeeping.
I like these topics just fine. I don't particularly like them filling up HN because HN is pretty bad at them and it's bad at them in a pointedly tedious, repetitive way. "pointedly tedious and repetitive" is the most offtopic thing on HN. But for any story you feel should get more exposure, you can email the site mods and make the case for it. This happens all the time.
And yes, I absolutely 100% would prefer contentious "go fuck yourself" arguments on politics
Well, as you say, you're entitled to prefer that but that's not the sort of messageboard this is. But again, you can make the case for changing that but it seems pretty uphill. Yelly messageboards are a dime a dozen and many HN participants are here because this one is slightly less yelly.
The thing is they want to make the point DEI went too far. If they are finally getting to the “we ourselves have gone too far”, then they may put in a black woman to show some type of capitulation without giving up moral superiority.
That’s IF they are evolving, otherwise expect two white males.
If you want to put a tinfoil hat on, one could argue external state actors could have convinced the Trump admin their provided forms of communication are tapped, so they should consider alternatives. Such a state actor would know the alternatives are compromised well in advance by them.
The DoD or Pentagon don’t have their own messaging apps? Maybe our government doesn’t spend enough on tech. To me this is the same as if this were happening on Zoom or Discord, since these are not exactly world war level apps.
Finally, the echoes of Dr Strangelove are strong with this one. A veritable board room of talking heads that don’t ever really talk about life or death, but just the material numbers of raw commerce or messaging (deterrence) .
> When mission needs or the effective conduct of DoD business cannot be adequately supported by Microsoft Teams Chat, SMS texting may be used in accordance with DoDI 8170.01. In such cases, a complete copy of the record must be forwarded to an official DoD electronic messaging account of the user within 20 days of the record's original creation or transmission in accordance with Section 2911 of Title 44 U.S.C, and Component processes. The complete copy of the record includes the content of the message and required metadata, and the record must be retrievable and usable in compliance with the applicable retention schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States. DoD Component heads shall ensure that DoD users are provided guidance on their Component's processes for forwarding complete copies of records originating in SMS texts.
A face to face meeting in a bunker. But seriously, we pondered the psychological damage of those who are drone operators. How is this different? There should be more ceremony when making decisions like this, not an afternoon group chat. Dress for it, look yourself in the face for it. Be present.
I’ll just say one thing about this administration. It is often true that when one thing is wrong with a man, then it’s possible all things are wrong with the man. We keep adding to the list, but I’m suggesting the inductive proof here. All things may be wrong with these men, which is scary.
The smartest people who ever lived worked on mid-century Cold War strategy, which was non-partisan. Von Neumann, Thomas Schelling, etc. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to be the best possible communicator of those ideas to the President, at all hours of the day. You and I and everyone else in this thread know what crystal-forming pressure that meant for SECDEF in the 1960s. Nowadays, half of those potential qualities (for this President) come from just being seen on Fox News; he's already "dressed for it".
But Hegseth is such an average person. With charisma, he could aw-shucks his way past the media. Unlike McNamara, Hegseth is not charged with proving how important a competent SECDEF is. Maybe even demonstrating how arbitrary the standard can be given such an average person can just, well, phone it in.
While it's true that no sum of such average people will ever approach one John Von Neumann, it's not fair to blame an average person with some self-awareness for their every flaw. Which is why Hegseth's denials move the needle from "forgivable mistakes expected from Joe Blow" to "history-making example of Dunning-Kruger".
2. The affective-emotional component: how much does the pain hurt, and how does it affect emotional state?
I am going to add the spiritual aspect to this. I read a post on Reddit asking if Jesus truly suffered more than anyone else on earth, given that more people suffer for longer than his 24 hours ish on the cross.
Without believing the story of Christ at all, I was still able to do the mental exercise to see that the nature of the pain had nothing to do with the duration. For example, watching your mother watch you get crucified is heart stopping (or to watch another mother have to go through that).
So, what is the purpose of a human feeling that pain as an experiencer or as an observer? Why would our body elicit that psychic pain, why wouldn’t we just focus on the physical and ignore these other things? In that moment, your only concern should be the physical, but it’s not just physical.
The psychic pain almost has no use in a state of physical torture other than to inform the conscious of its duty to morality. Unfortunately, I do not believe science can ever conclude this is the answer (in no possible way, I’m open to being wrong).
I’m not asking you if you read carefully. This is not to be mean, I asked the GP specifically because they demonstrated that they understand the spirit of what I am talking about. Your own confusion is stemming from something else, not my question (you don’t even recognize my question, as evidenced).
For example, who raised you? See, that’s a question you might not understand but it’s the spirit of my original question.
In other words, just because such a system could be used in this way, is it good that it is being used this way? That’s the energy this is coming from.
But I agree with your premise, even in its snark, none of us are stupid - we should already know.