[johnchristopher]

> Except some things get sunk like a brick before they even garner 10 votes. It's a nice explanation, it just doesn't fit what we're seeing at all.

I believe some sources are automatically weighed down based on url.

> That doesn't apply to the flagged stories I saw.

I checked half your list and found no flagged stories. I saw comments and discussion though.

> Why are you asking me this? I'm not the one flagging stuff, seeking to shape HN for others, if something doesn't interested me, I click "hide".

You are the one complaining you don't see what you want to see on the front page.

> Except when it's not, and when "at its core" is just a weasel word.

Some people on HN will argue to death that it's a social network. I disagree as well. It's a link list curated by registered account upvoting and downvoting stuff with some kind of anti-spam filter in between.

I don't think you can be reasoned with if you hold the position that downvoting/upvoting/flagging is downright censoring.

Now the truth is, you haven't really provided yet solid evidences of tampering attempts from the CCP (or anyone else) on HN. Not saying it doesn't exist, though.

[PavlovsCat]

> I checked half your list and found no flagged stories. I saw comments and discussion though.

All of them were penalized when I saw them. I know my word doesn't mean much, but I know that I took care to double check, which means that stories with more comments, a lower score, and an older date were ranked higher. Naturally, any stories that gained the [flagged] status gained it after I had spotted them as penalized, otherwise, I never would even have seen them in the first place.

That most stories that suddenly get sunk like a brick don't get that status is a fact, from which follows that it can't be automatic per URL, since they float and rise naturally for a few minutes or hours, sometimes to the very top, and then sink quickly, or even sink several pages at once.

> You are the one complaining you don't see what you want to see on the front page.

I'm actually not, I'm saying your explanations of how it's all benign don't hold water from what I'm seeing. If I don't like something on the front page, I hide it for myself. I don't try to take it away from others, and I'm complaining about people who are doing exactly that.

> with some kind of anti-spam filter in between

It's the big black box of plausible deniability, of "I didn't see anything, you must be the problem".

> I don't think you can be reasoned with if you hold the position that downvoting/upvoting/flagging is downright censoring.

Like that's just a general flag you get to set on a person while doing no damage to your own credibility at all.

I'm saying in, context of that quote, that it's "violence", as opposed to intellectually honest and open debate, because that's the function violence has in debate, to replace good faith arguments, just like silent downvotes and flags do. I stand by that, if all you have to say is "that's so silly I don't even have to argue against it", I just note that you can't or don't want to argue against it.

> Now the truth is, you haven't really provided yet solid evidences of tampering attempts from the CCP (or anyone else) on HN.

Like you have this narrative about why some things get flagged, without any proof, then keep shifting goal posts without even acknowledging that you're shifting them? And once again, I chose my words carefully. "the CCP driving this" also includes nationalistic mainlanders, the CCP acts by proxy in that case. Just like the CCP is behind stuff like this without directly being behind it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IingQPPEh0

[johnchristopher]

> That most stories that suddenly get sunk like a brick don't get that status is a fact, from which follows that it can't be automatic per URL, since they float and rise naturally for a few minutes or hours, sometimes to the very top, and then sink quickly, or even sink several pages at once.

I believe there's also the user posting history taken into account when weighting submissions.

> > You are the one complaining you don't see what you want to see on the front page.

> If I don't like something on the front page, I hide it for myself. I don't try to take it away from others, and I'm complaining about people who are doing exactly that.

Good point but since HN has no elaborated editorial policies per design what's put forefront comes organically from what is flagged/up-and-downvoted by the community as a whole. That's what gives HN its vibes, otherwise you'd end up spending your days curating your list since there are no filters (tag-based, source-based, whatever).

> It's the big black box of plausible deniability, of "I didn't see anything, you must be the problem".

Don't really know what you mean. I saw HK posts on the front page. Maybe you wish I had seen more ?

> > I don't think you can be reasoned with if you hold the position that downvoting/upvoting/flagging is downright censoring.

> Like that's just a general flag you get to set on a person while doing no damage to your own credibility at all.

> I'm saying in, context of that quote, that it's "violence", as opposed to intellectually honest and open debate,

Hmm. Agreed.

> I stand by that, if all you have to say is "that's so silly I don't even have to argue against it"

I did say more and I didn't say it was silly. If you believe downvoting and flagging is strictly censoring then no matter what can be said you'll always keep coming back to your narrative that HN is being gamed about HK. From the get-go your position is that HN is censoring things by design AND that it can and is actually being gamed to increase censorship. There's no space left to debate then and nothing I can say about what HN is (or what I think is) will make you change your mind or consider other explanations for what hits the front page.

> "that's so silly I don't even have to argue against it", I just note that you can't or don't want to argue against it.

Disagreed. I did. And what you should read into that is that I believe our positions are not compatible.

> Like you have this narrative about why some things get flagged, without any proof, then keep shifting goal posts without even acknowledging that you're shifting them?

I don't think I moved any goal posts. You claim the front page is manipulated, I say it's unlikely and you reply I am wrong. I may be wrong. But extraordinary proofs and all that. Here's an old article about HN ranking http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really... (you can google for some others). If you believe HN is being manipulated, collect raw data, do the analysis and submit it ? I am sure many people on HN would like to have a look. Also, you mail dang if you find anything substantial (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13727487).

Personally, I believe the apparent simplicity of the site hide the huge amount of people upvoting, downvoting and submitting links. There's only 30 slot on the front page to fill.

edit: don't get me wrong, I have seen and been in thread on imgur in which pro-chinese individuals promoted alternative facts regarding the tien-an men events a few weeks ago. With whole snippets of conversations set up in advance ("how can china not admit the massacre ?", "no, the US is lying about tienanmen, read this article", "oh, interesting, thanks for opening my mind about it"). It was crude but fascinating nonetheless.

Somehow I hope the HN crowd knows how to get facts about events and doesn't rely on HN only for staying up-to-date with current events.

[PavlovsCat]

> Don't really know what you mean. I saw HK posts on the front page. Maybe you wish I had seen more ?

There's a lot of sinking articles going on. So it's not 100%, sure. But I'm not "wishing" anything, I am disagreeing with your explanation.

> If you believe downvoting and flagging is strictly censoring then no matter what can be said you'll always keep coming back to your narrative that HN is being gamed about HK.

That's kind of a non-sequitur. And I think HN is gamed about a lot of things, in a lot of directions. I bet "pro-China" articles also get flagged, some of them that might have been interesting.

> From the get-go your position is that HN is censoring things by design AND that it can and is actually being gamed to increase censorship.

Not from the get-go, after being on this site for over 6 years and running a script to check penalized stories on and off for a few weeks here and there.

> I don't think I moved any goal posts. You claim the front page is manipulated, I say it's unlikely and you reply I am wrong.

You specifically were talking about news junkies upvoting things dopamine outrage porn, and the good normal folk who only visit occasionally flagging these things. That's not compatible with stories with 5-10 flags getting sunk like a brick in 10-120 minutes, which I know I'm just claiming, but since it's in response to something you're also just claiming, that's fair enough.

> If you believe HN is being manipulated, collect raw data, do the analysis and submit it ? I am sure many people on HN would like to have a look. Also, you mail dang if you find anything substantial (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13727487).

I did (collect data) for a while, but I got sick of it. Pay me, and I'll do it, but not for free, to just get shat on whenever I bring it up.

Back in the Snowden days, some people had their flagging privileges revoked for flagging anything to do with Snowden. I guess those days are long gone, and dang saying "I didn't see anything" I don't trust at all. I'm not going to make a throwaway email address just because we can't talk openly here.

I have a simple solution, too, just make all flags public. Maybe even give a limited budget per month or whatever. One thing is sure, if HN wanted to crack down on abusing flags, it would, it doesn't need me for any of that.

> Somehow I hope the HN crowd knows how to get facts about events and doesn't rely on HN only for staying up-to-date with current events.

That I agree with very much. And I also agree with not wanting to make HN an everything/nothing site.

But it does pain me that people who consider themselves so well reasoned and moral in large parts ignore totalitarianism, and pretend that's protecting some kind of discussion culture. To me it's like throwing a planet into the sun, but being really protective about a little garden that is on that planet. As German, it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, to tell you the truth.

I'm also not a fan of this super anal interpretation of guidelines in some cases, completely ignoring them in others, depending on context, depending on what is fashionable or uncouth. A lot of wishy-washy rules, selectively enforced, that comes with a lot of pomp about being better than the rest of the web. Just like Hannah Arendt, I'm getting so sick and tired of spineless pseudo-intellectuals, and am beginning to appreciate normal people with the heart in the right place more and more.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cy64mn/who_do_you...

You don't call HN, that's just a fact, HN is too busy building things that either distract people or make murder perfect, or a bunch of gimmicks inbetween. When some male techie dies, there's a black bar, when totalitarianism rears it's head and gets cocky, not a peep, unless we can somehow find a new and fascinating angle on it.

On me it has the opposite effect, the more discussion of these topics gets stifled, the less I want to partake in the discussion of harmless stuff.

And you know, getting downvoted for this within 6 minutes of posting, that says it all.. just more knee-jerk suppression, by someone who can't look in the eye of those they seek to silence, in a conversation they didn't partake in and can't even be arsed to actually read. Probably spotted this on "comments", didn't like it, "seemed like" something to them, down goes the vote.

Meanwhile, story #1 is "Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier", because that's important, that's interesting. We'll probably discuss soccer results sooner than the assualt on factual reality that totalitarianism undertakes.