[tyingq]

>The main concern here is pure politics: the conflicts around party, ideology, nation, race, and religion that get people hot and turn into flamewars on the internet.

Am I to read that as "No Stories or Comments about Trump"? Maybe that wasn't the intention, but the specific hot buttons seem curiously chosen.

[dang]

What hot buttons did I miss? I can think of gender. I'll add that one.

Edit: class, too.

Perhaps I should make explicit what seems obvious (to me) and say no, this doesn't have to do specifically with Trump. This whole year has been a political game-changer—think of Brexit before it. Perhaps our societies are becoming increasingly polarized, I don't know, but lots of things are going on in the outside world and Trump is just one of them, though of course a major one.

I wonder if developments on other online forums might be characterizing how this one seems to some users, but the truth is pretty mundane: I don't know about those other online forums because I don't have time to look at them. What we're talking about here is purely HN-grown.

[throwaway098345]

If I recall correctly you've previously requested feedback on were they line is between moderation and censorship. I think this is the line. At least I define censorship as when certain things cannot be expressed despite being relevant and expressed in a similar way as other argument.

Removing political discussions is in itself tricky since the definition of what is political is subjective. But removing certain kinds of political discussions is even harder to do well, if not impossible. If it's still going to be allowed to post things about housing markets, education, economics, regulation or other areas where social science arguments are relevant. You must also be able to express arguments or submit stories that uses subjects like class or gender. Otherwise you are removing certain perspectives from the discussion in favor of arguments outside those perspectives, which is censorship.

I don't think polarization is the problem, nor even that society is more polarized now than before. In many way it's the opposite. Subcultures and large dividing issues are to some extent a thing of the past. People tend to have less developed views and less experience with other peoples views. Which makes disagreements more personal.

[tyingq]

I'm really just curious about whatever it is that prompted this. It still sounds like "US National Politics" vs politics in general.

[dang]

I can tell you but you might be disappointed! What prompted this is a year (maybe two) of slow, slow reflection over how best to clarify what kind of site HN is, plus dismay over the uptick in harsh comments and primarily-political accounts that we've been observing as moderators this year.

When I say slow, I mean slow. I see part of my job (and it's my temperament anyway) as taking care to understand what this community is and how its system functions, and then to protect that and help it thrive. In practice this means that we take a long time (especially by startup standards, not that HN is a startup) to make changes, and have a strong preference for subtle changes. If we do make a significant change, you can be sure that we waited a long time for the need for it to develop.

But this isn't a significant change, not yet; it's a one-week experiment to see what happens.

[eropple]

Can I get a true or false response to each of the following props:

"A story about systemic gender discrimination in tech should be flagged under this policy."

"A comment regarding a person's startup experience that describes how their experience has been impacted by their race or gender identity should be flagged under this policy."

"A discussion of the sociological impact of Facebook's news curation tools should be flagged under this policy."

[dang]

Those feel like gotcha questions in a cross-examination, but let me try.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this policy". Do you mean this one-week experiment to try something for a week and see what happens? I wouldn't call that a policy. To me that word implies something intended to be permanent, which is precisely what we're not proposing.

Either way, though, the answer can only be "maybe", because any one of your descriptions could cover a huge range along the axis we're talking about (intellectual interest vs. political battle). So it would depend on the specific stories.

Since we've asked people to err on the side of flagging for just this week, obviously the odds of a story being flagged become higher, for just this week. That doesn't make those odds 100% on those topics. And since the way things normally work is erring on the side of not flagging them, it's hard for me to see this week as very significant. That's actually why we're doing it this way: a week should be enough to learn something and not enough to be that big a deal, even in the worst case.

[eropple]

> ... since the way things normally work is erring on the side of not flagging them, it's hard for me to see this week as very significant. That's actually why we're doing it this way: a week should be enough to learn something and not enough to be that big a deal, even in the worst case.

I hope you take it in good faith that I'm not saying this in anger or in any way except a desire to make this community something worth continuing to participate in: you've made it, and publicly trumpeted that you've made it, more risky and more difficult for someone to be something other than a straight white male here. (That's not one from me; I am paraphrasing a friend who has pulled the ripcord. She expressed to me that the alt-right movement here would use telling you this herself as a way to hurt her either personally or professionally or both, because that's the world she has to live in because of how tech works.) You're tacitly accepting that this helps to silence those folks because their lives are inherently and inescapably "political" due to the deviance from the straight-white-dude status quo represented in tech. That's why I formed those questions as I did. They're not "gotcha" questions. They are hard questions in the gray areas of what you're saying, where you are--I believe not with malice, but you are--giving people who wish those elements of your community would go away forever can under your own policies (and I did use the word intentionally, because "experiment" is much more innocuous than I think this effectively becomes) silence them. Because when you aren't a straight white dude, your life is "political" by the standards of the tech world.

People look to this place for a kind of cultural leadership in tech. (Whether or not you want them to or whether they should!) You're taking a stand on the issues of the marginalized and the underrepresented whether you want to or not. I would ask that you consider whether it's the stand you actually want to be taking. 'Cause, I mean...silence means status quo wins.

[throwawaymaroon]

you know, I've come to like you dang. I still detest this place and everything it stands for, but seeing you chipper (if somewhat resentful about having to be chipper) towards the kind of problems that come with your job has a way of cheering me up. Like you know the check will clear, but even so, no one works for money.

not that you asked, but both as a clearer moderation policy than we've seen before and as an experiment, I think this is a good move. there is some regret that you're lagging well behind Reddit's knowledgebase, as this sort of thing has been done many times there, and there's not much new information to be found.

That said, it does exacerbate the filter bubble of this place: based on how subreddits' experiments have gone, expect the moderate center to support you and press to make it permanent, expect a little bit of grumbling that might make you think that you've made your point and don't need to make it permanent, and expect... a few more people to leave silently.

You're a prop for the VC establishment, but damn if you aren't an earnest human, too.

[jerf]

I'd submit that it's right there in the writeup. Politics literally activates different regions in the brain, producing a situation in which rational discussion is difficult or impossible. Being a site that chooses to avoid that would make HN much more valuable, because there are so few that do, even fewer of any size.

I wouldn't support a moratorium forever, because there are topics that are both of perennial HN interest and also overlap politics, like intellectual property law and things specific to the tech industry. But I would support bumping off a lot more of the marginal stuff permanently. In general I would say that I see very little HN-specific contribution to most of those topics. (Not quite none, but hardly worth poking through the dross.)

[zepto]

I think one reason this seems so incongruous is that the change in politics seems to be so clearly interlinked with the technology that we in Silicon Valley have created.

How are things like job displacement and social media not simultaneously political and fundamentally products of hackers?

[dang]

It's a good point and I wouldn't argue otherwise.

[B1FF_PSUVM]

> I wonder if developments

The official press has committed collective suicide, and the whale-sized corpses are rotting in the street. Sometimes they twitch.

Things get pretty insalubrious.

[plandis]

I don't think that's the intention but honestly I wouldn't be too upset if that is what happens. I'm having trouble these days not seeing stories about Trump every single day on most of the sites I visit.