10 ms·

> In fact, I don't see a single story that I personally feel should not have been removed. I don't understand why this story was removed: "It turns out the six

• wtallis 3y ago
  I think reading the top comment on that post provides plenty of explanation why users would flag that post. Perhaps you're trying not to understand.
  • AlbertCory 3y ago
    Are you asserting that, if the title had remained "Anthony Fauchi [sic] Fesses Up" it would have remained, unflagged? Maybe you should Submit it again with the original title, and see what happens.
    • wtallis 3y ago
      If it had been submitted with that title, it would simply have been harder to pretend there's wasn't plenty of reason for the submission to be flagged.
      • AlbertCory 3y ago
        What reasons would those be?
  • ggdG 3y ago
    > I think reading the top comment on that post provides plenty of explanation why users would flag that post. That top comment complains that the HN title is WSJ's informative subheading instead of its clickbaity headline.
    • wtallis 3y ago
      The top comment complains that the title submitted to HN is both not the original headline, and not an accurate characterization of the content of the article. If there's no possible title to use for a submission that won't get it flagged, then clearly it's not a great article to be submitting. And it's disingenuous for you to pretend that the issue is HN users being unwilling to reexamine the public health response to Covid-19, when the submission is clearly flouting HN's rules. (The paywall doesn't help its viability as an HN submission, either.)
      • ggdG 3y ago
        > The top comment complains that the title submitted to HN is both not the original headline, and not an accurate characterization of the content of the article. What do you mean: "not an accurate characterization of the content of the article"? The title pretty accurately describes an admission by the former NIAID director in a House Select Subcommittee, according to the WSJ. That admission is the topic of the article. > And it's disingenuous for you to pretend that the issue is HN users being unwilling to reexamine the public health response to Covid-19, when the submission is clearly flouting HN's rules. From HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; I think using the clickbaity original title ("Anthony Fauci Fesses Up") would be flouting HN's rules.
  • dang 3y ago
    Please don't cross into personal attack. It just makes everything worse, and you can make your substantive points without that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • wtallis 3y ago
      That comment lined up pretty closely with one of my pet peeves. I apologize for overreacting and contributing negatively to what was already a busy day for you. Thank you for all your hard work and patience.
      • dang 3y ago
        Oh believe me it lines up with my pet peeves as well (and I have a lot of them). Thanks for the kind reply.
• tptacek 3y ago
  Stories about COVID controversies are almost certainly getting flagged off the front page by users, not touched by mods. People look at the titles of these stories and think that's all flaggers are going by, but lots of people flag stories based on their experience of what the threads are like, and the threads on COVID controversies are fucking dreadful. I didn't flag (or see) that story, but I would have.
  • verticalscaler 3y ago
    But why must they be dreadful? Genuine question, I am not being obtuse. We should be able as a community to discuss conterversial subjects somehow. I also think this sort of thing invites flag brigades. Or better yet, a small batch of bad actor can easily start brigading and forcefully associate such flamewar expectations with any subject they don't like to drive it off HN. Maybe worth reconsidering how you flag? You might be getting played. Or not, I really don't know. No obvious answers.
    • saagarjha 3y ago
      We should, but we don’t.
    • tptacek 3y ago
      I don't know why they're dreadful, but they empirically are, and that's the end of the matter for me.
      • verticalscaler 3y ago
        I think this sort of thing taken to the limit will cut every which way until eventually we run out of subjects and the overton window shrinks into an overton dot.
        • tptacek 3y ago
          We've been running this system for something like a decade now, I think we know how it's going to converge.
• CamperBob2 3y ago
  (Shrug) I don't require scientific proof of the inverse-square law. It's self-evident to the point of being axiomatic. Standing 6 feet away from a virus source will expose you to about 44% fewer virus particles than standing 5 feet away from one, while not imposing any real hardships in most public interaction scenarios. What's controversial about that? If you demand precise scientific rigor in all aspects of everyday life, public health is probably not the career field for you.
  • Workaccount2 3y ago
    The same with masks: Put a water hose on mist and spray someone with it. Then put a cloth over the nozzle and try to spray them. It's self evident yet people just could not grasp it.
    • nextaccountic 3y ago
      Are you saying that face masks are not effective?
      • CamperBob2 3y ago
        He's saying that someone else got to him first. He has a meta-analysis, don't you see.
    • ggdG 3y ago
      It's "self evident" yet a large Cochrane meta-analysis finds no benificial effect of masks whatsoever: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
      • Workaccount2 3y ago
        You sure? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2811136 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abs... When the medical field phases out masks because they "have no benefit" I will believe that masking was useless. Also keep in the mind that the primary reason for studies showing masks not working is that people don't wear it correctly or at all.
• BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Personally, I thought it was already pretty well established that the six-foot rule was based on poor science. I remember hearing about that years ago.
  • felixgallo 3y ago
    The thing is, you're not even wrong. The six foot rule was based on what the best understanding of the experts was at the time, and probably saved thousands of lives. Just like forced masking up probably saved tens of thousands of lives. Both were great examples of science, which readily admits to tuning when new evidence comes into play. However, because there's a right wing cult around Donald Trump, whose fortunes were hurt by the pandemic, the six foot rule and masking and vaccines are set up as straw men and attacked by a gigantic and well funded and organized horde of proxies, including the #1 media network in the US. It goes something like this: because a particular individual got COVID, that's proof that vaccines are not 100% effective and so They Lied To Us For Nefarious Purposes. Or because this particular individual stood 6 feet away and still got COVID, that's evidence that Fauci Is In A Conspiracy With The Chinese. Or because this particular individual survived COVID, it's just a cold. Or because masks are not 100% effective when not worn securely, they are not effective. And on and on. So it's not unreasonable or unlikely that you heard a thing about bad science and six feet of social distance or whatever. But hearing a thing, and the thing being true from foundational motivations of actual science, are very different right now.
    • jay_kyburz 3y ago
      omg, even talking about the flagging is going to trigger the flamewar :)
    • ggdG 3y ago
      >The six foot rule was based on what the best understanding of the experts was at the time, and probably saved thousands of lives. You can't just make up the beneficial effects of something as you go. Can you cite some randomized controlled trials that support your claim? >Just like forced masking up probably saved tens of thousands of lives. One year ago, a huge Cochrane meta-analysis of the available RCTs regarding masking has put that idea to bed: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
• hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I flagged that article, so I'll clearly explain why: 1. I think for anyone that has been on HN throughout pandemic knows it is extremely unlikely for topics like this to produce any sort of valuable discussion. I almost never see any sort of humility on the topic (to be clear, from many/all sides) that admits that people (individuals, experts, literally everyone) were doing what they thought best with the information they had available at the time. It always devolves into portraying the other side as evil. I'm tired of it, I don't want to see it on HN, there are literally pages and pages and pages of place on the Internet where you can have that debate if you're so inclined. 2. Are you honestly purporting that specific article is well tailored to "an overwhelmingly science-minded audience", as opposed to just having a particular political axe to grind, given the title is "Anthony Fauci Fesses Up"? Honestly, if the article was written with an intent to encourage an actual understanding about where the 6-foot rule came from, and about whether the evidence for it was lacking, I probably wouldn't have flagged it. > it bothers me that an important topic like that is deemed untouchable. I think the mistake you are making there is thinking because a particular article is flagged by a lot of users that "an important topic like that is deemed untouchable." I can't speak for others, but for me that is absolutely not what I think, and it's not why I flagged this particular submission.
  • nvm0n2 3y ago
    That isn't clear at all. You seem to be saying that if you anticipate that people might question other people's competence or motives, or in your view a discussion won't lead people to think the right thoughts ("encourage actual understanding") then you flag it to try to ensure nobody can discuss it. But you also say that making it undiscussable is also not about making the topic untouchable. That's just playing with words, isn't it? It's exactly what you're trying to do and exactly why you're flagging it. This particular case is really egregious. Fauci has said this draconian policy "just sort of appeared", yet you damn anyone questioning his competence or motives as lacking humility? What would it take for you to allow criticism of this guy?
    • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Your response highlights the exact thing I'm talking about, as it ascribes motives to me that are totally foreign to me, and takes the tone that flagging an article means that I think I want to "ensure nobody can discuss it." I could respond to some of your other sentences, but you've exactly proven my point, so thank you.
• dang 3y ago
  (I detached this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39230689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39230689 for reasons explained below.) The subthread your comment generated here already answers your question. (<-- not a criticism! just an observation.) People are flaming each other about the inverse square law, droplets vs. aerosols, who is refusing to face reality, and sundry other nastinesses in the comments below. It demonstrates what a shitshow a frontpage thread would have been. It's not that the topic itself is "untouchable". HN had quite a few threads about the lab leak hypothesis for example. But these things are sensitive to initial conditions, and something about the way that headline frames the story feels doomed to me, from an HN point of view. The good stuff for HN is substantive, thoughtful conversation driven by intellectual curiosity. That's what the site is for. We don't always get there by any means, but I only want to turn off user flags when the odds give us a fighting chance. I remember seeing that story get flagged and thinking: it'll never work. Another aspect of this: like it or not, curiosity and repetition have an inverse relationship. After the mind has been hammered with the same hammer enough times, curiosity gets sick of it and goes "ugh, not that again". That means that on a topic like all-things-covid, which we all got hammered with, the majority of the audience, who don't care that much, check out at first mention of the topic. Who does that leave? The ones whose motive is more intense than mere curiosity. From an HN point of view, that's a ticket to hell. Curiosity can only operate within a certain range of nervous system activation. If the needle sinks too low, the topic is 'bleh' and nobody cares; but if the needle goes into the red, people will care—my god will they care—but they'll no longer be functioning out of curiosity. That's a failure mode for HN. When it comes to divisive, heavily-covered topics like that one, the thing to watch for is some kind of interesting new information that isn't entirely reducible to existing battle lines. The same forces driving the thread into flamewar will still be present—but at least you'll have some current running the other way.