People use the word "transparency" to mean different things. Here are the ways in which I think it's fair to say we're transparent about mod actions: (1) we explain the principles that we apply, frequently and at length; and (2) we're happy to answer questions, including about specific cases.
What we don't do is publish a complete moderation log. To understand why, it's probably easiest to look through my past answers about this at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Here's one: >>39234189 .
In our experience, the current approach is a reasonable balance between the tradeoffs. It's true that we don't see all the comments like the ones you posted here, and we can't address what we don't see. It's also true that, as volume has grown, we've found it harder to reply to absolutely every question. But it's still eminently possible to get an answer if you want one—especially if you're asking in a way that signals good faith*.
(*I add the latter bit because some people use the format of "asking a question" as way of being aggressive and in such cases we may respond otherwise than by taking the question literally. That's pretty rare though.)
I'm pretty sure that if you sqldump the list of flaggers of this and other posts (like the MN posts) you will find it's not a uniformly distributed list of users.
I've answered that point many times, e.g. recently here: >>46378818 . If you take a look at that and have a question that isn't answered there (or here), I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
I haven't had a chance to look at the flaggers of these recent stories to verify that they fit the same pattern, but the pattern is so well-established that it would be shocking if they didn't. Btw, when you say "anything that goes against MAGA", the converse is the case as well (possibly even a bit more so). And when I say (quoting the comment I just linked to):
> There are some accounts that abuse flags in the following sense: they only ever flag political stories, and their flags are always aligned with the same political position. When we see accounts doing that, we usually take away their flagging rights.
... I didn't add that we do this the same way in either political direction, because that goes without saying, or ought to. But I'm saying it explicitly here.
Am I wrong that there used to be a flagged option on the lists page, or am I missing where that is?
If you flag a post, you are inadvertedly trying to push a hn post away.
That's fine if the current moderation finds it okay and I respect HN moderation but once again another post gets flagged & dead.
If someone flags a post, they should have a reasoning why. So have it public, so that its easier to call people out if they are being unfair and it would make people more aware of who they are flagging and actually why.
The problems we're talking about come from the fundamentals: how HN is defined (i.e. its mandate), how the site is structured (one front page that everyone shares, only 30 stories per page, etc.), how people feel, and what's going on in the world at large. Given those fundamentals, these conflicts are inevitable. All we can do is work on how we respond to them—trying to respond better, more creatively, more relationally. By "we" I mean all of us: mods qua mods, users qua users, mods qua users, and users qua mods.
That's not going to happen to anyone's satisfaction, but if it can happen at all, that has to be good enough.
I feel like Freud telling you guys you're all doomed to frustration!
Flags are basically me waving my hands in the air calling for a mod. That's not something I do unless I feel it's outright harmful to the site. I'm a late commenter so I pretty much never have to flag postings (mostly just comment responses that come straight out of Twitter).
Fascism isn't a subjective matter. We have loads of definition and the article makes a serious argument. If the quality of the article matches the subject matter, it's not flag worthy.
That's why I don't flag on ideology. I flag based on if 1) this inspires curiosity and 2) does not inspire hate (which is usually built into 1. You can't be curious of your biases are clouded by prejudice).
>or because I point out the legal basis for justifying an LEO's use of lethal force, etc.
There's a time and place. I'm very critical of Charlie Kirk, bit I gave it a week before o really went full hog on my tjoughts and actions. I have to look it back up, but I believe here I left it at "no one should be assassinated for their thoughts, even if those thoughts don't follow the golden rule" and left it at that.
Now, months later I will happily say that it quite the coincidence that so many Kirk articles here weren't flag while calling the situation what it is still gets flagged.
Please don't just say that the system is as is and no change can be upgraded.
I feel so frustrated at times whenever I comment in posts and I am observing a lot of the articles themselves getting flagged effectively killing the discussion.
I spent an hour today trying to find HN api to build my own custom HN alternative on which people can respond after a post turns dead for not much apparent reason.
It frustrated me because it was about Children's safety & how EU's taking action against Grok in this case... I mean I just want to share my frustration right in here that people aren't thinking of even children but an us vs them dynamic or some reason and flagging and deadding posts. This is a new low that really really frustrated me & I feel like you might understand why too.
Please change the system. I beg of you to fix it because I am seriously frustrated by not even knowing what can get flagged or not or even Dead. I am not against the moderation but can we make it so that instead of auto flagging atleast, its a flag that moderators have to pass?
Please dang, I know you want the best of HN community too. Let's work together, I feel like much of HN community really appreciates you (myself included) but we are all frustrated about it. How do we convey such change in any way where the idea of change seems feasible because It just seems that the idea of change seems like something which doesn't feel possible in HN from whenever I read such threads and that does depress me because HN is the best community i am part of. I am proud of being part of HN and many others are too and this is why we are vocal about some need of change. Some need that moderators are willing to hear our demands of frustrations and fix some aspects with change.
Once again, thank you for your moderation efforts. And I hope we can have a fruitful discussion about my comment in which I have tried to express my deep frustration today...
I am a minor dang, I have got female friends my age and If any one of these photos would've been abused by Grok, I will tell you that they would've been scarred for life, maybe worse. These could have been someone's sisters and daughters.
And what HN community flagged was a post about EU trying to levy a 6% fine on Grok...
My blood boils thinking that there are people in the community I am proud of being whose first thoughts were to flag such an extremely important discussion to make it dead.
I don't come here for politics but I still discuss about them often. I primarily come here to enjoy tech but man oh man I hope you realize my frustration and other users frustrations & are able to implement some thing which can satisfy us well instead of doing nothing please!
I know you aren't a corporate sellout and are passionate about this community, I just hope that something can be done. I believe in you & trust you after writing this message that you will do what you feel is right.
Have a nice day dang.
Edit: Looks like the other thread got reopened again. If Dang opened it (maybe after reading this?) then thanks a lot broski! This is absolutely great that you fixed it man!
But I hope that Hackernews can have such that things like these just don't happen ie. wrongful flags of genuine topics in the first place etc. or something can still be done or atleast some discussion about it within HN discussions or if possible, please discuss it with a community by creating a ask HN just once and discussing it with other (moderators? if I remember I think you are the only one paid moderator, or maybe tomhow iirc) but my point is please just involve the community just once and weigh in for this problem once again.
Modern problems require modern solutions. I just hope that Hackernews keeps on growing and false positives can be stopped and such system can be generated to prevent such as I must admit that the amount of frustration at that time was seriously immense.
Thanks once again for opening that discussion again and once again have a nice day dang!
The article makes an argument because it cannot follow a consensus-accepted decision tree. We have many conflicting definitions from multiple sources, and there is all sorts of room to debate whether any given incident actually evidences some point of some definition. It is dictionary-definition subjective.
But more importantly, trying to fit something under a definition doesn't change what the thing actually is. Labelling things as "fascism" encourages lazy argumentation, and makes one prone to motte-and-bailey fallacy and the noncentral fallacy. For one example, people are now going around referring to ICE as "gestapo", prompted by this "fascist regime" framing. The central defining feature of the actual Gestapo is that they were secret. ICE agents are not hiding themselves in general, and even on the relatively unusual occasions that they are in plain clothes on video footage, they are not thereby doing anything that would be out of order for, say, local law enforcement.
This rhetoric also primes people to perceive "1A violations" when people are arrested for reasons clearly other than what they were saying, or "4A violations" in cases where a warrant is not legally required, or "10A violations" when federal law enforcement officers attempt to enforce federal law and happen to be within a state (or DC or Guam or whatever, you know what I mean) when they do so (as if there were any alternative). And it primes people to perceive ordinary law enforcement actions that have always happened and were always expected to happen in similar circumstances, in other developed countries like Canada as well, as some kind of fascist oppression. Most importantly, it has always been a federal crime to obstruct federal law enforcement; and 1A clearly does not and never did empower people to physically block the path of LEO to wave a sign in their face; and nothing ever legally empowered people to resist arrest.
> I flag based on if 1) this inspires curiosity and 2) does not inspire hate (which is usually built into 1. You can't be curious of your biases are clouded by prejudice).
I am not flagging based on ideology when I flag submissions like this one. I am flagging because they do not inspire curiousity and do inspire hate. Labelling people with terms like "fascist" (including vague political outgroups) is hateful. The fact that I can get responses like >>46768495 and (in another thread) >>46754655 , and the fact that I can get flagged on comments like (in another thread) >>46749406 , makes the lack of curiousity-inspiration clear. As does the fact that every attempt I make to point at legal code and case law goes ignored in favour of people telling me that I'm out of line for daring to contradict their assessment of who is or isn't a fascist. Cogent arguments against the article's point of view are summarily rejected; threads fill with propaganda about "summary executions" (in ignorance of what self-defense law actually says) and pithy statements that don't seem to require any clear argumentation as long as they come to the right conclusion; and the ingroup gets more and more worked up.
>There's a time and place. I'm very critical of Charlie Kirk, but
People were openly celebrating the assassination; and they were spreading propaganda that blatantly misrepresented many different things he said, in many cases coming across as if they had had talking points prepared. And they also baselessly tried to associate the shooter with their political outgroup, despite that narrative barely making any sense.
Outside of HN, I saw all sorts of people call for more political violence, say that certain people "were next", etc. It was the first time in nearly a decade of being on Discord that I ever felt compelled to report anyone's messages to Discord Trust & Safety.
None of that should be accepted in the first place. To say that "there's a time and place" to call out such egregious behaviour is appalling.
You may notice that neither I nor anyone else justifying the shooting of Renee Good here on HN have been speaking ill of her. I have in fact been careful and explicit in not ascribing malice to her (because any resulting case is about Ross' perspective, and Good's mens rea is not relevant to an LEO's self-defense claim.)
(May I please also just say that it's especially galling to hear current appeals to 1A used to defend protesters who were impeding officers and resisting arrest, from the same political direction as the people who were happy that someone engaged in an act of protected speech was shot and killed by a sniper who politically disagreed with that speech? I didn't record any instances of the same person making both arguments, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it happened, either.)
I don't at all mean to come across as angry or belligerent. I simply want to explain why it hurts to read these things, and why I think they aren't in keeping with the intended spirit of political discussion on HN.
> quite the coincidence that so many Kirk articles here weren't flag while calling the situation what it is still gets flagged.
This is not about sides. This is about the tenor of rhetoric in submissions and comment sections (and the reasonable expectation of how comment sections will play out based on the submission).
I understand you're between a rock and a hard place on this one but I also notice that this thread has not had its flags removed, which you could easily do.
Gold Breaks $5.000/Oz - >>46761853 - Jan 2026 (0 comments)
Werewolf Romance 101: quick trope map and what to watch for - >>46761315 - Jan 2026 (1 comment)
Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal - >>46760329 - Jan 2026 (152 comments)
Tell HN: I cut Claude API costs from $70/month to pennies - >>46760285 - Jan 2026 (20 comments)
Introduction to PostgreSQL Indexes - >>46751826 - Jan 2026 (16 comments)
Alex Honnold completes Taipei 101 skyscraper climb without ropes or safety net - >>46750470 - Jan 2026 (137 comments)
Show HN: QuantDinger – AI-driven, local-first quant trading platform - >>46745801 - Jan 2026 (0 comments)
Show HN: Build agents via YAML with Prolog validation and 110 built-in tools - >>46731256 - Jan 2026 (11 comments)
I'm 34. Here's 34 things I wish I knew at 21 - >>46718086 - Jan 2026 (106 comments)
Steam "Offline" status leaks exact login timestamps (Valve: Won't Fix) - >>46698687 - Jan 2026 (96 comments)
Idiocracy - >>46679515 - Jan 2026 (13 comments)
Show HN: Minikv – Distributed key-value and object store in Rust (Raft, S3 API) - >>46661308 - Jan 2026 (39 comments)
Scott Adams has died - >>46602102 - Jan 2026 (1794 comments)
Shopify CEO vibe codes an MRI viewer - >>46587741 - Jan 2026 (21 comments)
Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy - >>46587536 - Jan 2026 (950 comments)
I'd tell you a UDP joke… - >>46580946 - Jan 2026 (50 comments)
A Unique Performance Optimization for a 3D Geometry Language - >>46573566 - Jan 2026 (4 comments)
I Hate Go, but It Saved My Startup: An Architectural Autopsy - >>46567151 - Jan 2026 (15 comments)
Inside the women's prison where violent male inmates have their way - >>46555705 - Jan 2026 (0 comments)
Show HN: Various shape regularization algorithms - >>46549333 - Jan 2026 (5 comments)
Eat Real Food - >>46529237 - Jan 2026 (1638 comments)
Everything You Need to Know About Email Encryption in 2026 - >>46492810 - Jan 2026 (11 comments)
Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin, usr/sbin split (2010) - >>46487921 - Jan 2026 (157 comments)
Show HN: Dealta – A game-theoretic decentralized trading protocol - >>46464133 - Jan 2026 (36 comments)
Tatiana Schlossberg, granddaughter of John F Kennedy, dies aged 35 - >>46438216 - Dec 2025 (1 comment)
Tell HN: I write and ship code ~20–50x faster than I did 5 years ago - >>46436872 - Dec 2025 (103 comments)
VSCode rebrands as "The open source AI code editor" - >>46403073 - Dec 2025 (76 comments)
OrangePi 6 Plus Review - >>46401499 - Dec 2025 (180 comments)
I have to give Fortnite my passport to use Bluesky - >>46327818 - Dec 2025 (69 comments)
How, and why, I invented OnlyFans. In 2004 - >>46302892 - Dec 2025 (5 comments)
Couples rate honesty/trust/sex/money 1-10 → AI coach closes every gap - >>46190219 - Dec 2025 (0 comments)
Growth Marketing Manager - >>46152463 - Dec 2025 (1 comment)
Dark Mode Sucks - >>46024894 - Nov 2025 (159 comments)
Owning a Cat Could Double Your Risk of Schizophrenia, Research Suggests - >>45946707 - Nov 2025 (14 comments)
The Anatomy of the Least Squares Method, Part Two - >>45923755 - Nov 2025 (1 comment)
Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology - >>45733430 - Oct 2025 (152 comments)
Say Goodbye - >>45476371 - Oct 2025 (106 comments)
Times New Dumbass - >>45392811 - Sept 2025 (1 comment)
Supermicro server motherboards can be infected with unremovable malware - >>45363465 - Sept 2025 (145 comments)
Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf] - >>45299170 - Sept 2025 (249 comments)
JIT-ing a stack machine (with SLJIT) - >>45257241 - Sept 2025 (7 comments)
Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah - >>45202200 - Sept 2025 (3317 comments)
Internet Archive is now a federal depository library - >>44685342 - July 2025 (58 comments)
2025 Recession Indicators Hit Fashion and Wall Street at Once - >>43573488 - April 2025 (151 comments)
Show HN: Paste a Zillow URL and get a property analysis - >>43180130 - Feb 2025 (22 comments)
Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose - >>42650732 - Jan 2025 (125 comments)
The risk of cancer fades past the age of 80 - >>42487301 - Dec 2024 (48 comments)
The Pentaconta Crossbar and Exchange - >>41977353 - Oct 2024 (13 comments)
Un Ministral, Des Ministraux - >>41859466 - Oct 2024 (99 comments)
The Flexipede Revisited - >>40828223 - June 2024 (2 comments)
Secret Hand Gestures in Paintings (2019) - >>40606924 - June 2024 (162 comments)
Direct Solar Power: Off-Grid Without Batteries - >>37500708 - Sept 2023 (86 comments)
Anonymous Hacks Epik - >>28532464 - Sept 2021 (249 comments)
Herdwicks: The 'smiley' sheep that shaped the Lake District - >>27172193 - May 2021 (13 comments)
Fucking, Austria changes name to Fugging - >>25223633 - Nov 2020 (239 comments)
In other words, the situation on this story turns out to fit the usual pattern as I described it a few weeks ago (>>46378818 ):
The accounts that flag these stories are almost always established accounts, so I'm not too worried about them being sockpuppets or paid influencers.
From everything we've seen, flags on political stories are a coalition between (1) users who don't want to see (most) political stories on HN, and (2) users who don't like the politics of a particular story they are flagging. In other words, users who care about the quality of the site, and users who care about a political struggle. This dynamic shows up on all the main political topics.
There are some accounts that abuse flags in the following sense: they only ever flag political stories, and their flags are always aligned with the same political position. When we see accounts doing that, we usually take away their flagging rights.
This, so far, seems sufficient to me. If we start to see indications that it's not sufficient, we'll take more action.
To make the point clearer, I went through all the other accounts that flagged the OP (i.e. not including the half dozen abusive cases) and collected examples of other stories they had flagged. I'll put that list in a reply to the current post since it's so long. I think anyone who browses that list will see what I mean when I say that most of these accounts are not flagging for purely political reasons.
I don't know if that assuages your concerns—probably not, because it's in the nature of the internet that people feel this way and explanations, data, etc., don't address those feelings—but we can at least try.
Besides those who flag political posts they don't agree with (which is a problem), I see a conflict in the comments between
those who think HN should be "politic-frei" because this is a "tech site" and "if I wanted to read about politics I'd go to reddit",
and those who agree this is a "tech/science/expand-curiosity-about-the-world site", and that's what makes HN a great community, but that it's sometimes, and especially recently, not possible to disentangle politics and tech. Musk/DOGE is a great example. No one asked Musk to drag politics into tech, and I wish I never had to read any articles about it and we could just talk about EVs and SpaceX, but he did, and so it's important to be able to talk about the impact which that has on tech, and on society, because this directly impacts us who are involved in tech/science. Tech/science does not exist in a vacuum.
The 'official', if I have to call it that, position of HN is closer to the second than the first, although I wouldn't say identical.
I have observed that any post that is negative about Musk gets flagged. Almost 100% of the time. In that regard, it has certainly occurred to me that someone with Musk's wealth would find it trivial to hire millions of people to monitor and attempt to influence his image on social media - and imo it would be quite surprising if he didn't have massive numbers of people whose full time job was to do precisely that.
In that regard, I find it obnoxious someone of his wealth should be entitled to such personal privileges on HN. I don't mean to imply HN is actively supporting that - just that I believe HN should be taking affirmative steps to prevent the removal of 100% of things that would annoy Musk from ever reaching the front page.
I hear you about privileges and I don't disagree, but we're mostly just trying to optimize for interesting discussions.
Thanks for taking the time to respond - and I certainly agree with the above. It's what makes HN pretty unique.