5 ms·

Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he defin

Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other users are happy with the program's output. Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.

dang 7y ago
Would it were so easy! It's more like this. You get dozens of bug reports a day. Some report that XYZ are bugs while others report that no, those are features and you'd better add more, but ABC are bugs and you'd better fix those. If you change ABC or XYZ, there is scandal and outrage! Many new reports are filed. The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)
- instantwhat 7y ago
  > What should we do now? :) I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning. A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views. Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones. At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000. This is plain to any observer who's been here a while. So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning. If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.
  - dang 7y ago
    I'd like to see links to thoughtful, reasonable comments that have been flagged or downvoted into obscurity. As many such links as you (or anyone) can possibly come up with, I'd like to look at them. Best to email hn@ycombinator.com because this thread is sinking low in the feed now. Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor? Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true. I'm not saying it follows that things aren't biased—that would be a non sequitur. But I am saying that people's perceptions on this are unreliable across the political spectrum, and for the same reason: it's humans looking at it, and we all have the same wiring. Whatever that wiring is, it cuts much deeper than left vs. right divisions, because the behaviors are identical across that divide.
    - 75dvtwin 7y ago
      I think there are 4 categories of topics 1) ideological (including political (globa/local), or religious 2) technical 3) personal (meaning focus is, specifically, on subjective position) 4) moral (meaning, focus is on subjective, but relatable at a group/society/era level) Problem is with ( 1 ), and may be ( 4 ). My personal view, is that if HN is to allow new submissions where (1) and (4) are present. Those submissions should go through a different flow, than (2) and (3). These submissions should be marked as such, then reviewed by a moderator, to see if it fits the broader category of HN-allowed submissions. And then, if the submission passes moderation, the discussion on those posts cannot follow same upvote/downvote model as ( 2 ) or (3). Because regular upvote/downvote model puts at disadvantage minority view. -- -- WRT your question > Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor Yes, I think selection of submissions, downvotes and flags favors disproportionally to anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male rhetoric. I particular share a view of environment issues, though I favor non-global, trade-based solutions. So I, personally do remember incidents where my submissions or comments were downvoted on that topic. Interestingly, on more political conservative forums, that I participate on -- when I argue a pro-environment position -- I get some pushback, sometime ridicule -- but my comments never 'grayed out' or flagged. -- Sorry for a long, response. But yes. I favor particular ideology and moral stance. Everybody has those positions. I also appreciate, particularly, flexibility of mind and personal ability to adjust to something different if circumstances or new information dictates that. I have yet to find any discussion that would cause me a shift in my positions on (1) or (4). I suspect this is same with other people, but being tested by questions, or telling others what I think -- is engaging, nevertheless. Another thing, I noticed, that I tend to use 'reciprocal' tone. So the actual tone would depend on some selection/aggregation of other folks tone. My overall complaint, if I may call it that, is flagging/graying out expressions that are conservative-leaning.

dang 7y ago

Would it were so easy! It's more like this. You get dozens of bug reports a day. Some report that XYZ are bugs while others report that no, those are features and you'd better add more, but ABC are bugs and you'd better fix those. If you change ABC or XYZ, there is scandal and outrage! Many new reports are filed. The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)

instantwhat 7y ago
> What should we do now? :) I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning. A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views. Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones. At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000. This is plain to any observer who's been here a while. So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning. If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.
- dang 7y ago
  I'd like to see links to thoughtful, reasonable comments that have been flagged or downvoted into obscurity. As many such links as you (or anyone) can possibly come up with, I'd like to look at them. Best to email hn@ycombinator.com because this thread is sinking low in the feed now. Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor? Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true. I'm not saying it follows that things aren't biased—that would be a non sequitur. But I am saying that people's perceptions on this are unreliable across the political spectrum, and for the same reason: it's humans looking at it, and we all have the same wiring. Whatever that wiring is, it cuts much deeper than left vs. right divisions, because the behaviors are identical across that divide.
  - 75dvtwin 7y ago
    I think there are 4 categories of topics 1) ideological (including political (globa/local), or religious 2) technical 3) personal (meaning focus is, specifically, on subjective position) 4) moral (meaning, focus is on subjective, but relatable at a group/society/era level) Problem is with ( 1 ), and may be ( 4 ). My personal view, is that if HN is to allow new submissions where (1) and (4) are present. Those submissions should go through a different flow, than (2) and (3). These submissions should be marked as such, then reviewed by a moderator, to see if it fits the broader category of HN-allowed submissions. And then, if the submission passes moderation, the discussion on those posts cannot follow same upvote/downvote model as ( 2 ) or (3). Because regular upvote/downvote model puts at disadvantage minority view. -- -- WRT your question > Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor Yes, I think selection of submissions, downvotes and flags favors disproportionally to anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male rhetoric. I particular share a view of environment issues, though I favor non-global, trade-based solutions. So I, personally do remember incidents where my submissions or comments were downvoted on that topic. Interestingly, on more political conservative forums, that I participate on -- when I argue a pro-environment position -- I get some pushback, sometime ridicule -- but my comments never 'grayed out' or flagged. -- Sorry for a long, response. But yes. I favor particular ideology and moral stance. Everybody has those positions. I also appreciate, particularly, flexibility of mind and personal ability to adjust to something different if circumstances or new information dictates that. I have yet to find any discussion that would cause me a shift in my positions on (1) or (4). I suspect this is same with other people, but being tested by questions, or telling others what I think -- is engaging, nevertheless. Another thing, I noticed, that I tend to use 'reciprocal' tone. So the actual tone would depend on some selection/aggregation of other folks tone. My overall complaint, if I may call it that, is flagging/graying out expressions that are conservative-leaning.