[dang]

I think it's a legit concern and it worries me too.

We can only go by the articles that users submit, and then only the subset we see, which is a function of (a) randomness and (b) users bringing specific cases to our attention. If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with. Why might that be? Well, there are a lot of possible reasons and people would most likely dispute about those as much as they do about the underlying topic.

For what it's worth (which may not be much), all I can tell you is that we want deeply, and are trying hard, to be even-handed. At the same time, we're not going to apply some sort of mechanical both-sides balancing because, although it might make things superficially easier in the short term, I don't think it would be in the spirit of the site, and we don't do that about anything else.

The even-handedness I'm talking about is probably easier to notice in our moderation of comments, so far, than of the articles. I feel pretty confident that we've done a good job of that [1], more than I am about the articles. Perhaps that's because there have been thousands of comments, but only a handful of frontpage articles, on the topic. One consistent lesson of HN is that you can't draw general conclusions from a handful of datapoints. It takes a lot more than that before reliable patterns show up.

What matters to me is that there be principles underlying the moderation and that these get applied equally. This isn't fully achievable because there's always interpretation involved—we don't get every call right. But I think the principles are the right ones for HN (I've explained what these are in the links mentioned above), and I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.

I don't know how satisfactory this answer can possibly be but I hope it's at least clear that I hear you and care about the question.

[1] That is, when people break HN's rules in the comments, such as by posting flamebait or snark or personal attack, we flag and/or reply and/or ban irrespective of what the commenter is for or against. It might not appear that way to many readers who have strong passions on a topic, but it's not as hard to do as one might assume, especially after 10 years of practice.

[beloch]

"If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with"

This really cannot be understated. HackerNews draws an educated demographic, which generally tends to be centrist, perhaps leaning a bit to the centre-left. Remember, this is based on demographics. Individual exceptions will occur but do not prove the rule.

The uncomfortable thing about political discussions is that most (not all) of them occur over things for which there isn't a clear-cut scientific consensus. If something is truly clear cut and self evident, then it usually won't turn into a political issue. You can set up an argument that is unassailable from one viewpoint but which crumbles from another. Two people who are reasonable and logical can have stark disagreements over political issues because of how they approach the issue. When people we respect and admire express political views that do not match our own, it can be disquieting.

The most important thing is to maintain respect for each other, even when we disagree. Political discussions on HackerNews usually don't descend into flame-wars, and I appreciate that. Perhaps you've hit on something important by limiting the frequency of such discussions. If they occur infrequently enough that they aren't a constant irritant, perhaps its easier for participants to keep their cool.

[matsemann]

FWIW, it's also easy to claim HN is biased, because people are biased differently, and HN is close to global.

As a northern european, I for instance would say that I often find HN trend conservative, compared to the discourses in my country. But someone from a different part of the world could claim HN to lean progressive, based on their political environment.

So I don't think there is an easy way here. If one were to decide that HN should balance both-sides, who draws where the middle lies?

[kome]

I agree with you. From my Southern European perspective, I don't find this site particularly "progressive" at all. I would describe most of the comments as liberal or centre-right.

And indeed, there is no solution here other than to be tolerant of other opinions, which may come from very different contexts than your own.

american foreign policy often becomes european union migration policy. just remember that, for example, when discussing international affairs.

Having said that, I have to say that HN is one of the communities that is better at dealing with different opinions, from different places. It's much harder on Reddit. On Metafilter, it is absolutely impossible: anything far from mainstream American liberalism is considered taboo.

[dang]

That's a really important point which is unfortunately barely understood at all. I tried to write about it here one time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.

The only thing I'd add to your point is that while HN is certainly global (or let's say highly international), the community is still overwhelmingly from Western countries. (Not all hold pro-Western views, of course, but that's different.) This means that users from non-Western countries who want to contribute views that go against what is commonly believed in the West, have a hard time. We do what we can to help, but unfortunately it's not much, because the forces of large numbers and group psychology are unstoppable, especially together.

[hef19898]

Well, there are things that cannot be bozt-sided:

Everything that violates human right for example. Or direct threats to democracy.

[mlrtime]

I'd be interested in reading a thoughtful discussion on what happened to El Salvador in HN.

I haven't come across one yet.

[mistermann]

Some of us will happily take the non-normative side on things like this as well.

[hef19898]

I take issue with people taking a "non-normative" approach on things like human rights. Especially if donso happily!

[mistermann]

I like when people take issue with me, shame it rarely amounts to much more than the subsequent chaos that ensues because humans refuse to resolve their differences via communication.

[wolverine876]

dang - Productive and honest public discourse is arguably the most important issue in the world right now - arguably our greatest need. And that seems to depend on moderation.

Ideally, with sufficiently effective moderation technique any groups could be brought together and talk it out. We'll never reach that ideal but my point is, moderation has incredible potential value.

You've done a good job of it here, you're thoughtful about it, probably you have studied and learned more than fits in HN comments. You might do whatever research remains and write a book. I hope you will!

> I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.

Probably you've thought of it, but it's not even-handed when strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others. OTOH, I appreciate that hot topics get a different level of scrutiny.

[dang]

I don't understand what you mean here:

> strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others

Can you explain?

[wolverine876]

Because you ask, I'll lay it out in more detail. But it's a general point that might not even apply in these cases (it's only two mod actions and so not a lot of data points) so I don't mean to over-emphasize it:

The two changes you listed and I quoted, while I think they improve the quality of those OPs, resulted from a level of scrutiny that seems higher than what most OPs receive.

Imagine Vim and Emacs users were again at odds. And imagine that Vim users raised every possible objection to Emacs OPs, resulting in a lot of extra scrutiny of the Emacs posts. Even if each mod action was even-handed, overall the actions wouldn't be even-handed between Vim and Emacs.

But as I said, the Gaza war is a very hot topic and extra scrutiny seems like a good idea. Anything that cuts down on unsubstantiated claims seems especially good.

[hersko]

Thanks for the response. I guess i just don't understand why some political stories make it through, when the vast majority (like this one[1]) are rightfully flagged.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622270

[dang]

If you look at the links I listed in my GP comment, I've posted quite a few explanations of how and when we turn off the flags on an article. If there's a question I haven't answered there, I'd like to know what it is.

[throwawayhate]

Thank you for explaining this a bit more.

There are things sometimes that don't have two sides to balance out perspectives.

Not a lot of them, but there are for sure.

Difficult conversations often require the ability to reflect and contemplate on one's own understanding before being quick to validate it and reinforce it by putting it on others.

[hayst4ck]

Saying something is biased on one side and therefore wrong or unfair is incorrect because it denies the idea of objective truth.

If there is no such thing as objective truth, then nobody has any foundation upon which to make any judgements, and therefore power alone becomes the ultimate arbiter or conflict.

The idea that there is no objective truth is a core tenet of fascism.

So in a "curious" place you would expect openness to new explanations, but you would also expect one-sided-ness because there is an objective truth to approach and the purpose of curiosity is to approach that truth.

If there is no objective truth, there is no reason to be curious.

If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to complain about one-sided-ness because what matters is our best approximation of the truth.

A quote from Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder's book: On Tyranny

     To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.
   If nothing is true, then no one can criticize
  power, because there is no basis upon which
      to do so. If nothing is true, then all is
      spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for
           the most blinding lights.