zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
I gotta admit that it is a bit weird to see british royalty being so heavily privileged that they even get special moderation treatment here on HN to protect them (?) from any negativity, or rather stop negativity about them.

I'm not keen on the idea of using this submission to flame the Queen, I obviously agree with the general rule of avoiding flamebait, what I mean is that other HN submissions on the deaths of people certainly didn't get this special treatment. It is also not at all enforced in both directions when looking at the obviously and comically over the top positive comments of low quality which contain no real substance.

Edit: I used the wording "stop negativity" which might be misleading, since (as far as I am aware) no comments are being deleted. What I'm talking about is moderation giving out a lot of warnings and keeping a closer watch on "flamebait" violations than I've ever seen before on any submission.

>>2pEXgD+X31
I love hating on moderation and I'm always ready to be critical of it, and of dang, if it's warranted. But I will say "monarchy is bad" comments are boring and don't lead to interesting discussion. There's a million other places to express that if you want.

>>93po+U91
> I love hating on moderation and I'm always ready to be critical of it, and of dang

That's an oddly positive attitude to hatred.

>>ycombi+v42
Sort of tongue in cheek, but the visible effects of moderation are awful in 90% of circumstances across the internet. Granted we don't see the benefit of the non-visible parts, but on reddit especially there are endless stories of communities being ruined by moderation, and moderation being used to force community behavior that suit the moderator's agendas.

There instances, like HN, where the platform isn't trying to be used for making money or pushing an agenda. Moderation on this tends to be good, but that set of circumstances is rare