10 ms·

Yes, I asked dang by email, and he told me flags from my account have been disabled because I flagged things he agreed with. I think votes are also disabled. T

by immibis 8mo ago

Yes, I asked dang by email, and he told me flags from my account have been disabled because I flagged things he agreed with. I think votes are also disabled. The buttons are still there, but they don't do anything.

LexiMax 8mo ago
It's funny, because I had been feeling this in my gut - the idea that they do have oversight over flagging and downvoting, and they just pick and choose who they go after based on biases. To that end, I've actually been avoiding the downvote and flag button entirely. It's handy to close off an avenue of admin retaliation, but on a deeper level I feel like the reflexive race to downvote people you disagree with is the "game" part of gamified engagement. Besides, if an HN user says something horrendous, I feel like other HN users deserve to know the kind of company they have on this site, instead of tone-policing it under the rug.
- immibis 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- dang 8mo ago
  There's no aspect of this that we haven't publicly explained over and over again. Here's one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818. Here are countless others: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20flags&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you read some of those explanations and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it. What you shouldn't do is take commenters' claims about it un-skeptically, because sometimes (as in this case) they are false.
  - immibis 8mo ago
    You don't explain the aspect where a certain political group generates way more flaggable content, and then you flag-ban those who flag it, which promotes that content because it is no longer flagged. You also don't explain how 2 posts per 3 hours constitutes a "ban".
    - dang 8mo ago
      Re your first statement: certainly I've addressed that issue many times, but I can do it again: I don't believe that claim is true. It merely feels true to people with strong political passions, because everyone always over-weights the contributions of their enemies and under-weights the contributions of their own side. The significant thing—I was going to say "the ironic thing", but it isn't ironic—is that this class of politically passionate users all have the same perception even though they may have entirely opposing beliefs. In this they resemble each other more than they do anyone else. I don't understand your second statement.
      - immibis 8mo ago
        You said you banned me, but what you actually did was reduce my rate limit to 2 comments per rate limit period. You deleted a comment from me where I said that drugs don't let you access extra dimensions or planes of existence, just alter your mental processes so you feel like you do. Care to explain that one? Other moderated comments included: "HN has word-based flagging" and "flags should not be used to indicate disagreement".
        dang 8mo ago
        We definitely banned you, for the reasons I gave at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46699941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46699941. Banned accounts can still post to HN but their posts are killed by default. You seem to be asking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46694184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46694184 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46691754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46691754. Those comments were killed by user flags. That was before we banned you.
        immibis 8mo ago
        The buck always stops with the platform owners. You don't get to blame users for moderation decisions.
        8mo ago
  - LexiMax 8mo ago
    I do not take their claims un-skeptically. I've been lied to one too many times by users who claim, "Oh I totally didn't do anything to get banned, bro." But I don't trust you either, and my reasons for being reluctant to flag and downvote are genuine. This is because I've also seen moderation teams who swear up and down that they're not biased, but who later get caught out when they put their finger on the scale through action or deliberate inaction. But there's another dimension to the unfrustworthiness, because I have also seen moderation teams who don't put their finger on the scale per se, but are so invested in their own rules that they let their community rot beneath their feet from people who have figured out how to manipulate them.
    - dang 8mo ago
      If you can find an instance of me saying we're not biased, I'd love to see it, because I'm pretty sure I've never said that. What I've said, and believe, is that of course we're biased, because it's impossible not to be and because unconscious bias is a thing, but that we at least try to mitigate the effects of it, and have a lot of practice at doing so. Are those efforts negligible? I doubt it. I think HN would be a different place if we weren't trying to do that.
dang 8mo ago
That's false and seriously misleading. Since you've done this repeatedly, even abusing your account profile to do it ("This is because I disagreed with dang. Dang has confirmed this by email."), I've banned the account. It's fine to disagree with how we run HN. Plenty of users do. In fact, HN users love disagreeing with us and we take it as a sign of their attachment to this place. Complaining about / objecting to mod decisions and admin practices is part of the life of the forum. How do we respond? By patiently answering questions, explaining how the site works, listening to objections, and addressing them as best we can—over and over and over. Anyone who wants to can verify this. We've done it over 200,000 times, on the site and by email. (I just checked.) What's not fine is to misleadingly misrepresent what we've told you to other users, thereby poisoning the community. That's seriously over the line and is a reason for banning someone if they do it repeatedly as part of a pattern. (Fortunately, this is rare.) Readers have a right to know how HN is actually administered, and admins have a right not to have their words distorted. When I explained to you why we removed flagging privileges from your account, the reason was no different than what I've publicly stated in countless comments, e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818 (Dec 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43051024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43051024 (Feb 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46592822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46592822 (Jan 2026) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46521819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46521819 (Jan 2026) You can find 2,700 other past comments I've made about flagging at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20flag&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... In not one of those, nor in any email I've ever sent, will you find any reference to us disabling flags because someone "flagged things [dang] agreed with".

by immibis 8mo ago

LexiMax 8mo ago

It's funny, because I had been feeling this in my gut - the idea that they do have oversight over flagging and downvoting, and they just pick and choose who they go after based on biases. To that end, I've actually been avoiding the downvote and flag button entirely. It's handy to close off an avenue of admin retaliation, but on a deeper level I feel like the reflexive race to downvote people you disagree with is the "game" part of gamified engagement. Besides, if an HN user says something horrendous, I feel like other HN users deserve to know the kind of company they have on this site, instead of tone-policing it under the rug.

immibis 8mo ago
[flagged]
dang 8mo ago
There's no aspect of this that we haven't publicly explained over and over again. Here's one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818. Here are countless others: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20flags&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... If you read some of those explanations and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it. What you shouldn't do is take commenters' claims about it un-skeptically, because sometimes (as in this case) they are false.
- immibis 8mo ago
  You don't explain the aspect where a certain political group generates way more flaggable content, and then you flag-ban those who flag it, which promotes that content because it is no longer flagged. You also don't explain how 2 posts per 3 hours constitutes a "ban".
  - dang 8mo ago
    Re your first statement: certainly I've addressed that issue many times, but I can do it again: I don't believe that claim is true. It merely feels true to people with strong political passions, because everyone always over-weights the contributions of their enemies and under-weights the contributions of their own side. The significant thing—I was going to say "the ironic thing", but it isn't ironic—is that this class of politically passionate users all have the same perception even though they may have entirely opposing beliefs. In this they resemble each other more than they do anyone else. I don't understand your second statement.
    - immibis 8mo ago
      You said you banned me, but what you actually did was reduce my rate limit to 2 comments per rate limit period. You deleted a comment from me where I said that drugs don't let you access extra dimensions or planes of existence, just alter your mental processes so you feel like you do. Care to explain that one? Other moderated comments included: "HN has word-based flagging" and "flags should not be used to indicate disagreement".
      - dang 8mo ago
        We definitely banned you, for the reasons I gave at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46699941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46699941. Banned accounts can still post to HN but their posts are killed by default. You seem to be asking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46694184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46694184 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46691754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46691754. Those comments were killed by user flags. That was before we banned you.
        immibis 8mo ago
        The buck always stops with the platform owners. You don't get to blame users for moderation decisions.
        8mo ago
- LexiMax 8mo ago
  I do not take their claims un-skeptically. I've been lied to one too many times by users who claim, "Oh I totally didn't do anything to get banned, bro." But I don't trust you either, and my reasons for being reluctant to flag and downvote are genuine. This is because I've also seen moderation teams who swear up and down that they're not biased, but who later get caught out when they put their finger on the scale through action or deliberate inaction. But there's another dimension to the unfrustworthiness, because I have also seen moderation teams who don't put their finger on the scale per se, but are so invested in their own rules that they let their community rot beneath their feet from people who have figured out how to manipulate them.
  - dang 8mo ago
    If you can find an instance of me saying we're not biased, I'd love to see it, because I'm pretty sure I've never said that. What I've said, and believe, is that of course we're biased, because it's impossible not to be and because unconscious bias is a thing, but that we at least try to mitigate the effects of it, and have a lot of practice at doing so. Are those efforts negligible? I doubt it. I think HN would be a different place if we weren't trying to do that.

dang 8mo ago

That's false and seriously misleading. Since you've done this repeatedly, even abusing your account profile to do it ("This is because I disagreed with dang. Dang has confirmed this by email."), I've banned the account. It's fine to disagree with how we run HN. Plenty of users do. In fact, HN users love disagreeing with us and we take it as a sign of their attachment to this place. Complaining about / objecting to mod decisions and admin practices is part of the life of the forum. How do we respond? By patiently answering questions, explaining how the site works, listening to objections, and addressing them as best we can—over and over and over. Anyone who wants to can verify this. We've done it over 200,000 times, on the site and by email. (I just checked.) What's not fine is to misleadingly misrepresent what we've told you to other users, thereby poisoning the community. That's seriously over the line and is a reason for banning someone if they do it repeatedly as part of a pattern. (Fortunately, this is rare.) Readers have a right to know how HN is actually administered, and admins have a right not to have their words distorted. When I explained to you why we removed flagging privileges from your account, the reason was no different than what I've publicly stated in countless comments, e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818 (Dec 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43051024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43051024 (Feb 2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46592822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46592822 (Jan 2026) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46521819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46521819 (Jan 2026) You can find 2,700 other past comments I've made about flagging at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20flag&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... In not one of those, nor in any email I've ever sent, will you find any reference to us disabling flags because someone "flagged things [dang] agreed with".