zlacker

> To take this blanket approach of "No talking about politics!" is...

For one week.

> "Forbidden topics" because some people's feelings are getting hurt?

It's about a lot more than that, as I tried to explain in the text above. There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we cannot be both of them.

>>dang+(OP)
> For one week.

Then I hope it's just for a week. I know HN weights certain topics down already. I think there's a good argument for some of that, but I don't see an argument for more of it.

> There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we literally cannot be both of them.

FWIW, as a user, I have not noticed an uptick in politically combative discussion on HN, although I have noticed the uptick in political posts. If your target demographic is basically founders/hackers/entrepreneurs/whatever, having a place to find relatively sane discussions about politics is a good thing. HN is pretty much that, I can't think of a place that's better.

I do think having lots of strong opinions in one place is a good thing and helps those opinions evolve towards something better. Echo chambers result in the information equivalent of inbreeding.

But that's my point, I very much don't want HN to become an echo chamber by, for example, banning political posts for more than 1 week (which is a weird experiment, but fine).

>>dang+(OP)
> There are two different kinds of site—intellectually curious and politically combative—and we cannot be both of them.

I disagree. You cannot support intellectual curiosity without healthy, relatively unrestrained (in subject matter) debate.

Now, simply tribal displays that aren't debate where people engage with each other, are a problem and need to be corralled effectively to avoid becoming.the dominant form of activity.

But not only is "politically combative" not opposed to "intellectually curious" in a site, the former is essentially a necessitate to accept if you are going to have the latter.

>>dragon+tf
From your profile, you've been around the block more than a few times here on HN. Your disagreement here has me puzzled, as it seems to be disagreement for its own sake rather than understanding the intent of the detox week and attempting to refine the language explaining it. I understand dang's "politically combative" to describe what you state as "tribal displays that aren't debate". Or am I completely misreading your comment? If that's the case, would you elaborate? Also, how would you handle behavior such as that displayed in

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13041886

What actually constructive on balance came out of these discussions? How can we improve the signal-to-noise ratio/reduce the tribal displays? This is a topic I'm genuinely interested in, so your take on it given your experience here on HN is of particular interest to me. I think it's not putting words in dang's mouth to say reducing the tribal displays (as opposed to stifle intellectual curiosity) is exactly what detox week is attempting to accomplish.

>>grzm+dh
> Your disagreement here has me puzzled, as it seems to be disagreement for its own sake rather than understanding the intent of the detox week and attempting to refine the language explaining it.

I'd love to understand the intent of detox week. I don't (either in terms of the intended scope of the policy or the motivation and intended goal state.)

And the issue I'm taking with elements of the description of either by dang (in a couple places in this thread) are both because I disagree with them phrased, and hope that pointing that out will lead to responses that better elucidate the whole picture.

But I suspect that the whole thing is trying to deal with a change in the political climate outside HN by modifying what is already a near-optimal policy in HN to one that is far worse.

>>dragon+fi
Cool. So, from your point of view, the threads I linked to are okay as is?

>>grzm+sj
No, from my point of view the exist guidance and policy on what is off-topic is the right way to address threads like that, and blanket bans on "politics", however defined, offer no additional benefit but do eliminate valuable conversation.

They through out more baby, but do nothing additional about the bathwater we want to deal with.

>>dragon+Qj
Now you've really got me confused. Other than the comment by dang at the top of one of the them that mentions the detox week, I provided them as examples of non-constructive threads on HN that are operating under the existing guidance and policies, which I understand you to say are near-optimal (and I agree are pretty good, and would like to see more enforcement of). With that in mind, are those threads okay, and to be expected as part of the current guidelines and enforcement (by mods and community)?

>>grzm+vk
Both of them are general interest political news threads covered by the mainstream media (one was at the front of every mainstream report in every medium), and are already, as such, at the top of the list of things which are presumptively off-topic and suspect. While they are perhaps predictably problem threads, the politics detox doesn't actually change anything about them from the preexisting policy. It just cracks down on the kind of specific-interst-to-hackers political issue threads that were arguably on topic under the normal rules, unlike these. Which makes no sense.

>>dragon+dl
they are perhaps predictably problem threads

Thank you! That felt like pulling teeth, and I didn't think was controversial at all. I'm not trying to score points.

[Edit to add: For me, this is part of finding common ground, and "they are perhaps predictably problem threads" is perfectly in keeping with your earlier statement about the existing guidelines and policies being "near optimal". No human social system is going to be perfect.]

I think that detox week (note: week, not permanent forever) is an attempt to reduce the problems these threads represent. You obviously disagree that detox week will do anything to improve this, which is fine. I think it's understandable that the mods would want to reduce these types of threads if they can.

You've also said that the current guidelines are near-optimal. Does that mean that any attempt to improve on the guidelines shouldn't be attempted? That's a legitimate position to hold. I think it's also understandable for the mods to try to improve the behavior on the site to more closely cleave to "civil and substantive". Hard to fault them for trying.

Thanks again for your contributing to this thread. I appreciate it.