Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by computerthings 500 days ago
These aren't "political winds". This is all a bit too much "we're all looking for the guy who did this", when it comes to Y Combinator and "tech bros" in general.

> Balaji then revealed his shocking ideas for a tech-governed city where citizens loyal to tech companies would form a new political tribe clad in gray t-shirts. “And if you see another Gray on the street … you do the nod,” he said, during a four-hour talk on the Moment of Zen podcast. “You’re a fellow Gray.”

> The Grays’ shirts would feature “Bitcoin or Elon or other kinds of logos … Y Combinator is a good one for the city of San Francisco in particular.” Grays would also receive special ID cards providing access to exclusive, Gray-controlled sectors of the city. In addition, the Grays would make an alliance with the police department, funding weekly “policeman’s banquets” to win them over.

-- https://newrepublic.com/article/180487/balaji-srinivasan-net...

That HN is for stuff not discussed in the news is basically disproven daily. The other thing I keep hearing that "if we allow this, the front page would be only about politics", I don't believe it anymore. It's like the stone that keeps tigers away. People may genuinely believe in that stone and that they're guarding the village, but I think it's bull and having to entertain this superstition takes up more resources than the occasional tiger attack would.

I know disabling flags is probably not feasible, since real spam does get posted. but we have "showdead" for comments, why can't we simply have the same option for threads? Then those who want to discuss these things can do it, at the price of also having to wade through actual spam. Anybody else would be unaffected. If the goal is not to suppress awareness and discussion, that can be very easily proven with such a feature, and the best time to implement it would have been a long time ago IMO.

2 comments

I haven't read that article but those bits you've quoted strike me as mad, and certainly have nothing to do with how we run Hacker News.
To be honest, it's such a long article I couldn't find a good passage that summarizes it, so I went for the most stark bit. Because it's really quite mad.

But it wasn't my intent to claim you run HN like this either way; but I'm making the educated guess that people who think the above isn't mad, but quite exciting, would be both likely to use this site, and prone to abuse flagging to suppress discussion, and/or awareness of the article that would be discussed.

Ah I see, and yes that's a mistake I make rather often (assuming that a comment is about moderation when it's actually about the community). But tbh I don't have this impression of the HN community. I don't think we have that many users who feel that way, and certainly we have many more users who would strongly disagree.
I don't know what "many" would be here, but it's obviously too many, since the flagging of these topics is really constant. And that flags are used by people because they are "annoyed by" or "don't care" about these things is stated by people all the time, who never followed up when I challenge them. So that doesn't give me the impression of good faith. If the reasons are benign and not to suppress awareness and discussion -- in short, not people thinking themselves the lords of others -- then nobody would have a problem with people opting out with something like "ignore thread flags" option.
Votes are a far bigger problem than flagging because it takes a pavlovian approach to what ideas are allowed. Flagging is important to remove spam and wholly inappropriate content. And if you revoke the ability of users who flag content based on a personal disagreement, that user simply loses that ability.
I suggested to add the ability of users to have their view of HN unaffected by these flags. Without that, HN simply has no ability to defend itself against abuse of users who take it upon themselves to play censor.