zlacker

[return to ""]
1. swores+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-06-28 09:44:16
I respect your judgment, so I've edited out the first bit, but honestly I feel it's not an unreasonable thing to say in response to genocide denial - it was said about the claim, not about the person, and in my opinion it's an accurate description of that claim. /my two cents
2. dang+d[view] [source] 2025-06-28 09:46:37
>>swores+(OP)
I don't disagree with that.

From a moderation point of view, it's a question of the effect that these bits have on other people in the community, and therefore the quality of the discussion. It's obviously near-impossible to have a thoughtful conversation about a topic like this across the vast differences (ideological, national, emotional) that separate people. In such a context, even provocations that feel small and justified can set the neighborhood on fire.

If the discussion devolves into just another internet screaming match where people hurl pre-existing talking points and just get even more riled up in rage, then the HN thread is a failure. Maybe it's too much to hope for anything better on this topic, which is probably the most divisive and emotional one we've ever seen, but I think we have to try. That's we allow the topic to appear on the HN front page from time to time. Not to allow it would be easier, at least in the short term, but inconsistent with the intended spirit of the site.

The bulk of your post wasn't doing anything like flamewar at all, so the swipey bits were particularly unfortunate.

p.s. I don't mean to pile on, but "please stop pretending" is also a swipe. You can't know whether someone else is pretending, and there's no reason to suppose that people aren't sincere in their convictions about a highly-charged topic (separately from whether their beliefs are true or false). If you lead by denying that, the rest of what you have to say will have little chance of being heard.

◧◩
3. callum+p5[view] [source] 2025-06-28 11:01:59
>>dang+d
Why not just get rid of the whole post? It's not relevant to HN and the comments range from uninteresting to terrible.
◧◩◪
4. owebma+p6[view] [source] 2025-06-28 11:14:47
>>callum+p5
Because then you can't moderate just one side of the discussion. Unfortunately, there's a clear pattern here.
◧◩◪◨
5. dang+B6[view] [source] 2025-06-28 11:17:59
>>owebma+p6
I have no idea which side you think we're favoring, but I can tell you two things for sure: (1) it's whichever side you personally disagree with; and (2) they think we're favoring you. Of everything I've learned about how HN functions (and internet dynamics generally), this is by far the most invariant.
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. owebma+K6[view] [source] 2025-06-28 11:21:22
>>dang+B6
With the risk of being moderated myself, why is it the case that is always the not pro-israel comments that get moderated? The original comment seems quite reasonable but the guy even kind of apologized, for no reason! That's pure coercion to conform, if I may be allowed (lol) to have an opinion.
[go to top]