6 ms·

At the same time, there must be a point where general humanity overrides community guidelines.

therealdrag0 6mo ago
Why? Everyone has alternative news sources where they can find such stories, and there’s nothing new here. There’s always some tragedy that you could argue deserves more attention, I don’t think we should hold our guidelines hostage to pleas for the heart.
- Sparkle-san 6mo ago
  > I don’t think we should hold our guidelines hostage to pleas for the heart. I don't think that's an accurate framing of the situation. It's a single post that enough people decided was worthy of being upvoted to the front page. I think allowing the community to decide is far more inline with the spirit of hacker news than the outright banning a category of posts.
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    Without taking one side or the other I just want to point out that a large part of the utility of guidelines or rules is that communities left to their own devices typically develop toxic patterns that are detrimental on the whole. They enable the community to decide not to leave something up to the community in the future. It's a large part of the idea behind countries having constitutions for example.
    - freedomben 6mo ago
      Agreed. In the ideal, I would love for politics and many things to be part of HN, because I yearn for the thoughtful, objective, "hacker" analysis on all topics. But in practice I've seen that generally speaking HN isn't capable of this. And realistically it's not fair to expect that as it isn't really consistent with human nature (despite my wish that it was). Someday though I hope to find the "hacker news for {politics, news}" but I realize it may just not be possible.
IncreasePosts 6mo ago
Why does Gaza get 10x the coverage on HN and other social media well, when what has been happening in Sudan in the same time period is 10x worse? (The 10x coverage number is from algolia hn search, the 10x worse number is from reported killings in the past year)
- awnird 6mo ago
  The atrocities in Gaza are funded by, and sometimes even committed by, Americans. That’s why a predominantly American forum is interested in it.
- Sparkle-san 6mo ago
  Because there is often a large tech component to it. The United States and Israel have two of the most advanced high-tech sectors in the world and they are playing a large role in this conflict.
  - muzani 6mo ago
    And the people on HN work disproportionately in such companies, so it hits closer to home. If Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, OpenAI, etc, were complicit in genocide in Sudan, Sudan would have much more attention.
- tovej 6mo ago
  Because the west (our political and economic system) supports this war, and does so much more loudly than the war in Sudan,which is funded by the UAE, also a US ally, but a far less visible and consequential one. Nobody is visible working the media or politicians to win people over for the UAE every day, unlike Israel. The aggressor in the Gaza genocide is also pulling the rest of the west into new wars in the region. The war is also deeply connected with our defense and tech industries. There is plenty of reason to discuss this war.
  - xg15 6mo ago
    Also, the conflict around "the area from the river to the sea" in it's entirety is something like 140 years old, with western countries having played a driving role since the very beginning. The Sudan conflict on its own has no such history. (The colonial history of Africa is a different story) Generally, I think it's reasonable to pay more attention to conflicts where the own side is in the wrong. I don't need to demonstrate or raise awareness if my government is already acting like I'd want it to.

Why? Everyone has alternative news sources where they can find such stories, and there’s nothing new here. There’s always some tragedy that you could argue deserves more attention, I don’t think we should hold our guidelines hostage to pleas for the heart.

Sparkle-san 6mo ago
> I don’t think we should hold our guidelines hostage to pleas for the heart. I don't think that's an accurate framing of the situation. It's a single post that enough people decided was worthy of being upvoted to the front page. I think allowing the community to decide is far more inline with the spirit of hacker news than the outright banning a category of posts.
- fc417fc802 6mo ago
  Without taking one side or the other I just want to point out that a large part of the utility of guidelines or rules is that communities left to their own devices typically develop toxic patterns that are detrimental on the whole. They enable the community to decide not to leave something up to the community in the future. It's a large part of the idea behind countries having constitutions for example.
  - freedomben 6mo ago
    Agreed. In the ideal, I would love for politics and many things to be part of HN, because I yearn for the thoughtful, objective, "hacker" analysis on all topics. But in practice I've seen that generally speaking HN isn't capable of this. And realistically it's not fair to expect that as it isn't really consistent with human nature (despite my wish that it was). Someday though I hope to find the "hacker news for {politics, news}" but I realize it may just not be possible.

IncreasePosts 6mo ago

Why does Gaza get 10x the coverage on HN and other social media well, when what has been happening in Sudan in the same time period is 10x worse? (The 10x coverage number is from algolia hn search, the 10x worse number is from reported killings in the past year)

awnird 6mo ago
The atrocities in Gaza are funded by, and sometimes even committed by, Americans. That’s why a predominantly American forum is interested in it.
Sparkle-san 6mo ago
Because there is often a large tech component to it. The United States and Israel have two of the most advanced high-tech sectors in the world and they are playing a large role in this conflict.
- muzani 6mo ago
  And the people on HN work disproportionately in such companies, so it hits closer to home. If Microsoft, Meta, Palantir, OpenAI, etc, were complicit in genocide in Sudan, Sudan would have much more attention.
tovej 6mo ago
Because the west (our political and economic system) supports this war, and does so much more loudly than the war in Sudan,which is funded by the UAE, also a US ally, but a far less visible and consequential one. Nobody is visible working the media or politicians to win people over for the UAE every day, unlike Israel. The aggressor in the Gaza genocide is also pulling the rest of the west into new wars in the region. The war is also deeply connected with our defense and tech industries. There is plenty of reason to discuss this war.
- xg15 6mo ago
  Also, the conflict around "the area from the river to the sea" in it's entirety is something like 140 years old, with western countries having played a driving role since the very beginning. The Sudan conflict on its own has no such history. (The colonial history of Africa is a different story) Generally, I think it's reasonable to pay more attention to conflicts where the own side is in the wrong. I don't need to demonstrate or raise awareness if my government is already acting like I'd want it to.