zlacker

> "What is HN doing right that it's gotten better over the years given how rampant sexism is generally in the world?"

I'd say pinning stories and then pinning comments at the top urging civil discussion seems to work fairly well for a broad set of controversial topics, including gender-related hot-button issues.

However, there is still so much hostility and such a strong gender skew that you even if the comments obviously violating HN guidelines get flagged, the residual of borderline commentary is still overwhelming in the aggregate.

It's possible to do more. Consider the moderation strategies used by Jezebel and TheRoot, where comments either have to be posted by someone on a whitelist maintained by staff, approved by someone on the whitelist, or approved by the person being replied to if their comment was approved. That moderation system allows those sites to keep the hostility just barely at bay, and you will read perspectives playing out in long threads on those sites which would be instantly shouted down on HN.

The cost of the system used at Jezebel/TheRoot is that it reduces the scope for debate, since only approved commenters can disagree at will — an unapproved commenter replying in disagreement will usually be ignored. Still, I wonder whether some sort of whitelisting mechanism isn't the only way to allow to allow underrepresented perspectives to develop fully.

(For what it's worth, this would also apply to certain socially conservative perspectives which tend to have a short life on HN.)

>>rectan+(OP)
That system implicitly assumes hostility as the default norm and I think it's one of those approaches that tends to follow the Shirky Principle of keeping alive the problem it is nominally intended to fix.

I hope the mods of HN never go with such a system.

>>Doreen+i1
Things that do not keep me awake at night worrying:

* The thought that HN might adopt Jezebel's moderation system.

* Whether sexism and racism will survive if Jezebel and TheRoot disappear.