zlacker

>>Rooste+(OP)
I've always wished there was a "block comments from this user" feature that didn't rely on vibe-coding my own Chrome extension (and thus not work on Safari where I spent at least 50% of my HN time). I imagine it could even work like Sponsorblock does, and we could crowdsource people who's comments are inflammatory.

I've also noticed that very obviously LLM-generated comments are called out, and the community tends to agree, but those that have any plausible deniability are given far too much leniency, and people will over-index on the guidelines to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think a captcha is the solution, as it'll degrade conversation by an OOM though.

>>rd+I5
This is an anti-goal for HN. There are forums that silo themselves in various ways. HN is an experiment in how far you can get without any of those kinds of features, with a single global pool of conversations and participants. That's not to say there's no value in siloing, just that it's specifically not what HN is exploring.

>>tptace+h9
>There are forums that silo themselves in various ways. HN is an experiment in how far you can get without any of those kinds of features,

Normally I'd agree, but we have shadowbans, which really irks me.

>>lagnia+0a
Only for actual bad actors --- spammers, overt griefers, and people evading bans. A lot of HN's shadowban rep comes from Paul Graham's stewardship of the site (this whole site was a side-hustle of a side-hustle for him) and ignores over a decade of Dan's work professionalizing it.

Almost everyone banned on HN is banned publicly, with a public message explaining why.

>>tptace+Me
>Almost everyone banned on HN is banned publicly, with a public message explaining why.

I would love for this to be the case, however I quite extensively investigate this phenomenon and this does not match what I've seen. I'd like for us to be better than shadowbans. In some cases, I don't even get to vouch, it's just a comment that is banned-banned. It feels the worst when they're saying something substantive to the conversation and we have no means to surface the comment.

Some type of annual amnesty consideration or something of that nature is in order, or soon we'll recreate other echo chambers that are slowly fading out.

>>lagnia+Fg
Every time I've looked into it, when you see suddenly and without reason ban-banned after a string of real comments, the backstory has been that it's someone with a track record under other usernames.

At some point, no matter what HN does, being comfortable with its moderation requires you to take Dan's word for things. I take his word for it on shadowbans.

Ironically, I'm irritated with moderation in the other direction: ten years of "if you keep breaking the guidelines under alternate accounts, we'll ban your real account" sort of makes my blood boil (people having long-running alts does that too), but I roll with it, because I couldn't do the job better than Dan and Tom do.

>>tptace+th
I think the tech is advanced enough to recognize a user by their choice of words. Not to downplay the problem but currently a new user might start out with a few comments on the poor side then talk into the shadow realm indefinitely. In my not very humble opinion the asshole level of the poor comments can easily be lower than the asshole level of the response.

I wrote a fun solution one time where the document comes with a token that needs to mature for a duration depending on the user. Then, when your [say] 30 seconds are expired the input area is displayed but the submit button only appears if you input enough characters - where enough again depends on the user. If you are likely to make low effort postings I want at least 500 or 1000 characters worth of low effort. In even worse cases ill also hold the comment for moderation - until I get to it. (which might be a long time)