5 ms·

Hacker News is extremely strongly manipulated. What users see as popularity order is actually the order manipulated to the moderators' liking. https://github.c

Hacker News is extremely strongly manipulated. What users see as popularity order is actually the order manipulated to the moderators' liking. https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#behaviors https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#behavi... I believe this is a good technical article for HN concerning safety culture of engineers, but moderators didn't think so.

seoulmetro 3y ago
[flagged]
dang 3y ago
It's not a technical article. It's a lurid media topic* about a suspicious-looking alleged suicide with zero information for a substantive discussion, and tons of fuel for sinister speculation. That's not what HN is supposed to be for. However, we can give this one a pass because the ongoing Boeing saga is of interest and there's clearly a community appetite to discuss this development. Edit: even though the thread is terrible, which is just what one would expect from a sensational topic with zero information for a substantive discussion. * Edit 2: I changed the word 'story' to 'topic' because I don't mean to disparage the BBC article itself - anigbrowl's reply is right on that
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Flatly untrue. It's a soberly worded recitation of the available facts with multiple caveas; the frenzy of speculation stems from Boeing's increasingly tattered corporate reputation, not the story. This was written to far higher standards than (for example) a story from the Daily Mail or New York Post; I'm astonished that you would characterize this way.
  - dang 3y ago
    Sorry—I'm tired and expressed that carelessly, and you're quite right. I wasn't talking about the article and am glad that it is as good as you say. In fact I merged the other thread into this one precisely because the BBC article was better. What I mean is that the story itself, i.e. the significant new information, is a lurid apparent suicide, and there aren't any details about that, other than it happened. Not because the article is bad but because that is the only piece of information available. The interest in such a story is neither technical nor intellectual and we shouldn't pretend that it is. It's a suspicious death story with sinister overtones. The curiosity here is not primarily intellectual, which means it's not really a good story for HN, but I'm giving it a pass because it is strange enough to be different and there's a community appetite to discuss it. Normally the latter isn't enough to justify a story remaining on HN's front page but there are degrees of community appetite and I recognize this one.
    - diordiderot 3y ago
      Good guy dang. Thanks for all your hard work making this place great.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - user_7832 3y ago
      I also think there are 2 different ways of discussing this - one is on mental health (if it's truly a suicide), shadowy agencies, Boeing's failures, and about corporate whistleblowing and its risks in general. The other discussion is speculation on what this truly is - which is a more political/controversial topic. There are lots of discussions on the former set of topics which are fairly popular on HN which explains why this thread is popular. I do think such discussions are valuable if there isn't a ton of speculation, which I think this thread is handling decently (although maybe I'm late enough to see all controversial comments already dead).
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      alleged is too strong. There's speculation which seems reasonable given the circumstances.
      - dang 3y ago
        Good point. 'alleged' isn't the word I was looking for. I've changed it to 'apparent' above.
  - Der_Einzige 3y ago
    [flagged]
- falsandtru 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Please don't copy-paste comments on HN, and especially not as a way of working around moderation. If a comment is in some state that you think it shouldn't be, you can ask us to change that and we can at least have a conversation about it, but just reposting it is not ok.
    - falsandtru 3y ago
      I don't know why you start making such belated arguments but the upvotes for that comment indicate that it was much more helpful to the viewer than flagging it to make it unreadable. And it does not avoid any moderation. What moderation was done? Here the flag serves only as censorship. It lacks objectivity and impartiality. Most people can't read what was written, they can only read your argument.
      - dang 3y ago
        Moderation isn't driven by upvotes; it's there to compensate for the failures of the upvoting system. If HN could operate by upvotes alone, that would be great—it would be so much less work. Unfortunately, it can't. A lot of the things you're complaining about have been established practice on HN for many years. If you want to learn how HN works, I'd be happy to help with that. But it's time that you stopped posting off-topic complaints and trying to stir up drama about these things. 18 of these comments in one thread is quite enough.
        falsandtru 3y ago
        So what is the avoided moderation and the failures of the upvoting system? Your rebuttal has too many irrelevant new arguments. All I am saying here is that if some statements can't be read, others can't read the argument. An argument where others can't read one side's statements is not an equal argument. You must at least be able to make every comment you have conversed with readable. Otherwise it is just your speech.
- lutoma 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - arrowsmith 3y ago
    Excuse me? MSM, a common acronym for the widespread and uncontroversial term "mainstream media", is now a "far-right dogwhistle"? I must have missed that memo. I can only imagine the bubble you must live in if you think that the "far right" are the only people who see reason to distrust mainstream media.
  - falsandtru 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - willis936 3y ago
      Jon Stewart has a crusade against MSM for their role in the US-Iraq War. Is he dogwhistling to the far right when he uses the term?
      - falsandtru 3y ago
        Knowledge alone is enough to say thank you. There would be no need to be so careful in saying a simple thank you.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        falsandtru 3y ago
        It wasn't. The downvote told me that here is the place to be careful about saying thank you. Well, those who downvote against thank you will downvote anything.
      - krapp 3y ago
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  Dang, it would be nice of you if you at least addmitted that the front page as opposed to /active is heavily curated and hand-picked by you and other moderators. Anyone who has been on HN long enogh can see this, there is no point in phrasing it otherwise. And I guess people will be ok with this as long you guys are transparent about it.
  - dang 3y ago
    I've posted thousands of comments about that over 10 years, starting on the day I took over Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494621 (March 2014)
    - falsandtru 3y ago
      I don't know why you expect people will find your old comment.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- falsandtru 3y ago
  The required explanation is unnecessarily unreadable, so I explain it again. As I wrote in my other comment, I meant the article as it relates to technology. My original comment is hidden below so I explain it again here. The safety of the environment surrounding engineers is a serious concern of engineers. Note that even if it is a suicide, it is still a safety problem of the environment surrounding engineers. Since it is Boeing that pressured him until he committed suicide. So I wrote "concerning safety culture of engineers". Your interpretation is a complete misunderstanding. At least the points voted on my above comment indicate that your interpretation is not the majority. Hence, thanks to the many supporters, my above comment received many votes and was moved to this thread and this thread was eventually returned to the top page. We must not remain ignorant or indifferent to unsafe working environments.
misnome 3y ago
That source doesn't match your claim at all. In fact it completely explains the observed behaviour? > Most tech related submissions with a hint of political partisanship will quickly be flagged to death by users (or die a slow death due to the inevitable flame war).

seoulmetro 3y ago

[flagged]

dang 3y ago

It's not a technical article. It's a lurid media topic* about a suspicious-looking alleged suicide with zero information for a substantive discussion, and tons of fuel for sinister speculation. That's not what HN is supposed to be for. However, we can give this one a pass because the ongoing Boeing saga is of interest and there's clearly a community appetite to discuss this development. Edit: even though the thread is terrible, which is just what one would expect from a sensational topic with zero information for a substantive discussion. * Edit 2: I changed the word 'story' to 'topic' because I don't mean to disparage the BBC article itself - anigbrowl's reply is right on that

anigbrowl 3y ago
Flatly untrue. It's a soberly worded recitation of the available facts with multiple caveas; the frenzy of speculation stems from Boeing's increasingly tattered corporate reputation, not the story. This was written to far higher standards than (for example) a story from the Daily Mail or New York Post; I'm astonished that you would characterize this way.
- dang 3y ago
  Sorry—I'm tired and expressed that carelessly, and you're quite right. I wasn't talking about the article and am glad that it is as good as you say. In fact I merged the other thread into this one precisely because the BBC article was better. What I mean is that the story itself, i.e. the significant new information, is a lurid apparent suicide, and there aren't any details about that, other than it happened. Not because the article is bad but because that is the only piece of information available. The interest in such a story is neither technical nor intellectual and we shouldn't pretend that it is. It's a suspicious death story with sinister overtones. The curiosity here is not primarily intellectual, which means it's not really a good story for HN, but I'm giving it a pass because it is strange enough to be different and there's a community appetite to discuss it. Normally the latter isn't enough to justify a story remaining on HN's front page but there are degrees of community appetite and I recognize this one.
  - diordiderot 3y ago
    Good guy dang. Thanks for all your hard work making this place great.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - user_7832 3y ago
    I also think there are 2 different ways of discussing this - one is on mental health (if it's truly a suicide), shadowy agencies, Boeing's failures, and about corporate whistleblowing and its risks in general. The other discussion is speculation on what this truly is - which is a more political/controversial topic. There are lots of discussions on the former set of topics which are fairly popular on HN which explains why this thread is popular. I do think such discussions are valuable if there isn't a ton of speculation, which I think this thread is handling decently (although maybe I'm late enough to see all controversial comments already dead).
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    alleged is too strong. There's speculation which seems reasonable given the circumstances.
    - dang 3y ago
      Good point. 'alleged' isn't the word I was looking for. I've changed it to 'apparent' above.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  [flagged]
falsandtru 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Please don't copy-paste comments on HN, and especially not as a way of working around moderation. If a comment is in some state that you think it shouldn't be, you can ask us to change that and we can at least have a conversation about it, but just reposting it is not ok.
  - falsandtru 3y ago
    I don't know why you start making such belated arguments but the upvotes for that comment indicate that it was much more helpful to the viewer than flagging it to make it unreadable. And it does not avoid any moderation. What moderation was done? Here the flag serves only as censorship. It lacks objectivity and impartiality. Most people can't read what was written, they can only read your argument.
    - dang 3y ago
      Moderation isn't driven by upvotes; it's there to compensate for the failures of the upvoting system. If HN could operate by upvotes alone, that would be great—it would be so much less work. Unfortunately, it can't. A lot of the things you're complaining about have been established practice on HN for many years. If you want to learn how HN works, I'd be happy to help with that. But it's time that you stopped posting off-topic complaints and trying to stir up drama about these things. 18 of these comments in one thread is quite enough.
      - falsandtru 3y ago
        So what is the avoided moderation and the failures of the upvoting system? Your rebuttal has too many irrelevant new arguments. All I am saying here is that if some statements can't be read, others can't read the argument. An argument where others can't read one side's statements is not an equal argument. You must at least be able to make every comment you have conversed with readable. Otherwise it is just your speech.
lutoma 3y ago
[flagged]
- arrowsmith 3y ago
  Excuse me? MSM, a common acronym for the widespread and uncontroversial term "mainstream media", is now a "far-right dogwhistle"? I must have missed that memo. I can only imagine the bubble you must live in if you think that the "far right" are the only people who see reason to distrust mainstream media.
- falsandtru 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - willis936 3y ago
    Jon Stewart has a crusade against MSM for their role in the US-Iraq War. Is he dogwhistling to the far right when he uses the term?
    - falsandtru 3y ago
      Knowledge alone is enough to say thank you. There would be no need to be so careful in saying a simple thank you.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - falsandtru 3y ago
        It wasn't. The downvote told me that here is the place to be careful about saying thank you. Well, those who downvote against thank you will downvote anything.
    - krapp 3y ago
bitcharmer 3y ago
Dang, it would be nice of you if you at least addmitted that the front page as opposed to /active is heavily curated and hand-picked by you and other moderators. Anyone who has been on HN long enogh can see this, there is no point in phrasing it otherwise. And I guess people will be ok with this as long you guys are transparent about it.
- dang 3y ago
  I've posted thousands of comments about that over 10 years, starting on the day I took over Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494621 (March 2014)
  - falsandtru 3y ago
    I don't know why you expect people will find your old comment.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
falsandtru 3y ago
The required explanation is unnecessarily unreadable, so I explain it again. As I wrote in my other comment, I meant the article as it relates to technology. My original comment is hidden below so I explain it again here. The safety of the environment surrounding engineers is a serious concern of engineers. Note that even if it is a suicide, it is still a safety problem of the environment surrounding engineers. Since it is Boeing that pressured him until he committed suicide. So I wrote "concerning safety culture of engineers". Your interpretation is a complete misunderstanding. At least the points voted on my above comment indicate that your interpretation is not the majority. Hence, thanks to the many supporters, my above comment received many votes and was moved to this thread and this thread was eventually returned to the top page. We must not remain ignorant or indifferent to unsafe working environments.

misnome 3y ago

That source doesn't match your claim at all. In fact it completely explains the observed behaviour? > Most tech related submissions with a hint of political partisanship will quickly be flagged to death by users (or die a slow death due to the inevitable flame war).