[scoobyyabbadoo]

Same here, just makes me think who has connections to get themselves declared fact checker. Can you imagine how awesome it must be to have major media outlets coo about how whatever you the fact checker says should not be questioned?

[hnbroseph]

> says should not be questioned

do you have examples of this happening?

[sterileopinions]

This comment is a dog whistle.

Why are HN moderators allowing this account to post comments on this forum?

Here is a previous comment on this account:

>tBut the progressive revolution has entirely skipped over the struggles of non-Jewish whites merely because of their skin color.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972062

and another one:

>Let's just be honest here, the only people experiencing fall-out from the Epstein case are not Je-yank

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20918028

It is very very concerning that HN moderators police tone but not substance and allows accounts like this one to proliferate conspiracy theories.

[dang]

You say that, yet it didn't concern you enough to let us know about it? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a non sequitur. What's actually happening is that we only see a portion of what gets posted to HN, and we can't moderate what we don't see. That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments and, in egregious cases, to email [e-mail]. Fortunately, another user chose to follow the site guidelines and did so.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21003570 for more.

[sterileopinions]

>The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the moderators secretly agree with it, is a monster of a non sequitur.

Yes. That's what happens when you provide a self-publishing system. You agree to that contract whether you want to or not.

And it's not just this comment. It happens all the time.

>That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments

I literally cannot do that. Surely you know that.

>Fortunately, another user chose to follow the site guidelines and did so.

You don't think it's a problem that only one other user decided to _email_ you a problem. Doesn't that indicate a problem with the site culture?

I'm one person, a consumer of this site. Not a moderator. I called attention to it using the one capability given to me on this site. Saying "that's not good enough" is extremely asinine when I literally am not able to do anything else on the site.

[dang]

It's trivial to get enough karma to flag posts on HN. We keep the threshold low on purpose so that anyone who wants to use HN as intended can easily cross it. The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. It's because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing your posts to get downvoted.

But you can always email us, as anyone can. The fact that you didn't shows that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're complaining about. Rather, you're using other people's abusive comments as an excuse to post abusive comments of your own, smearing the community—who don't support the dreck that shows up here, just like it shows up everywhere on the public internet—and trying to undermine it. When you imply that moderators somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith. Anyone who's been around HN as long as you have knows that's false. Rather, the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of trolling.

Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with? This site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended, and the intended use is laid out clearly at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: intellectual curiosity and kind, thoughtful discussion.

[scoobyyabbadoo]

I noticed the sudden drop of points in my comments score in the past hour, which I must deduce is you going through and downvoting all my posts? Please remember the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

[sterileopinions]

>which I must deduce is you going through and downvoting all my posts?

I haven't touched a single post of yours, and indeed it is impossible for me downvote _anyone_ with the current status of my account.

Pretty poor theory for a pretty poor person.

[scoobyyabbadoo]

OK, maybe you shared my account with someone who can downvote, it doesn't matter. If you have something to reply to my comments, you can reply to me directly with what you disagree with and why, I have always engaged productively with many people on HN whether their viewpoints are similar or different. From your prior comment I know you disagree with something I've said but you haven't stated why you think those things are incorrect, not that this thread is particularly relevant to all of them, it would make sense if you replied within the relevant discussions.

[sterileopinions]

Yeah, I shared it with this forum. When I linked to your comments.

[scoobyyabbadoo]

I clicked your links and don't see any replies from you to those comments.