zlacker

[return to "Zuckerberg claims regret on caving to White House pressure on content"]
1. Albert+dY[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:42:57
>>southe+(OP)
If you want to see what's been "moderated" away from you on Hacker News:

Click your username at the upper right:

Turn on "showdead": showdead: yes. (defaults to "no")

There are a number of dead posts in this thread. I'd post some here (some of which don't appear to violate any HN guidelines, I'll note), but probably those same moderators would kill this one, too.

◧◩
2. sangno+501[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:50:46
>>Albert+dY
HN allows everyone with sufficient karma to vouch for dead comments (or flag comments), I suspect most of the comment-level moderation you see is crowdsourced to fellow commenters; a still-dead comment means most of those who see choose to keep it dead.

HN is awesome because of the rules and moderation (including bans); any unmoderated forum devolves into a cesspit; and it only takes a surprisingly few bad apples to ruin a community.

◧◩◪
3. Albert+f11[view] [source] 2024-08-27 16:54:42
>>sangno+501
That's the gospel, for sure.

However, look at the dead comments here and, for each, tell us why it would turn HN into a "cesspit."

◧◩◪◨
4. margal+351[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:10:24
>>Albert+f11
> However, look at the dead comments here and, for each, tell us why it would turn HN into a "cesspit."

This is an impossible task and you know it. Asking your opponents to enumerate every dead comment on a thread with hundreds of comments is not approaching the issue in good faith.

Looking at a selection of dead comments on this thread, I see flame-baiting on israel/palestine, flame-baiting on trans and racial issues, assorted comments whose content might have been acceptable if it wasn't 40% profanity by wordcount, a bunch of unnecessary personal attacks, and assorted people redefining words and then asserting that only their new definition is the correct one.

I see basically nothing that would improve HN if it were not dead. I see a lot that would make HN actively worse if it were not dead.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Albert+j71[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:20:25
>>margal+351
> This is an impossible task and you know it. Asking your opponents to enumerate every dead comment on a thread with hundreds of comments is not approaching the issue in good faith.

No, it's not impossible. I count 15 dead now, not "hundreds" (when I said that originally, it was about 5).

Let's make it easy: why does bigbacaloa's go, and all the others stay?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. useful+0b1[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:39:56
>>Albert+j71
I was prepared to disagree, but actually I don't see what the problem is with that post.

Here it is, so others don't have to dig around for it. It appears to have been a top level comment.

"This pseudo-apology is the worst sort of political expediency. He did what the government asked while denying doing it, now apologizes for it to curry favor with the rightwing world he alienated. It's like the NY Times pushing the weapons of mass destruction narrative during the Iraq war and later running long articles about what bad journalism that was."

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. soneca+7c1[view] [source] 2024-08-27 17:45:37
>>useful+0b1
This post is dead not because this post was flagged. It is dead because the user was shadow-banned some time ago.

Whatever they post now shows up as dead

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. immibi+3h1[view] [source] 2024-08-27 18:06:44
>>soneca+7c1
If the comment is not a comment that should be dead, then the shadow-ban is not helping HN.
[go to top]