zlacker

>>lordna+(OP)
Has anyone ever seen an online community (with more than a handful of users) that focuses on more than cute puppy pictures and that is not described as "toxic" by "critics"? I'd say that HN does a great job at avoiding that. The article is titled "moderating hacker news" but fails to describe just how good a job the moderators and owners are doing. The moderators for moderation, and the owners for (as I perceive it) giving the moderators the freedom to try things that are best for the community (such as the politics-free experiment).

>>lucb1e+Ep
It's not up to The New Yorker to give praise to moderators or owners. That's inserting bias.

It's up to the readers (us) to determine whether the moderators are doing a good job.

>>cataco+Tu
> That's inserting bias.

Are you implying that this article was trying to be bias-free? The author spent entire paragraphs just cherry-picking "toxic" things that have been said on HN to make discussion here look bad.

>>slang8+kQ1
That's a very good description of what I mind about the article. Cherry-picking "toxic" things, that's exactly it.