Hi dang, is a user with similar karma levels as the flagging user able to unflag a post? If so, can you mention that in the FAQ as well? You may think it's obvious but I think it would have a calming effect on the meta-thread if people know that another user with the same amount of cred could theoretically unflag the post.
There is information in the FAQ about how to flag a post and who gets to do it, but it's unclear, at least to me, if another user with a similar karma level is able to unflag it.
I agree that a user may find the title inflammatory because it's an opinionated accusation without an explicit court decision backing it up, but I want to emphasize that official HN moderators should not be able flag this specific post as Coinbase is a YC company and happens to be one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, hence the conflict of interest in burying this story. I can't see any way how someone could contest the fact that this story presents a conflict of interest for YC.
The alternative is to allow this site to burn itself to a crisp, an irreversible outcome.
Perhaps you think the this-time-is-differentness of this time is different enough to justify it, but (a) none of us can actually know that in advance, (b) the impact of getting it wrong is existential (if one can use that word about a relatively trivial thing like an internet forum), (c) people have often said such things in the past and it's clear that we were right not to pull the plug when they did, and (d) my job hasn't changed.
OP here:
if stories like these will cause HN to burn to a crisp,
it's worth talking 'why?'.
We all know YC is a crypto backer,
and if crypto is the problem,
then maybe HN is part of the problem.
It hasn't got to do with cryptocurrency—it's the same with any major ongoing topic (MOT), especially when the stories are sensational, inflammatory, and/or divisive. This is about internet forum dynamics and our attempt to have a forum that's optimized for intellectual curiosity [1]. To achieve that means we have to limit the amount of repetition [2].
If you want further explanation, the links in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43272671 should take you to plenty. If you read some of that and then have a question I haven't answered yet, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Question: is Gary Tan willing to make a public statement about YC's stance regarding the propose Crypto Reserve how CoinBase will benefit?
In particular,
addressing Brian Armstrong's position that Bitcoin and only Bitcoin should be in the reserve? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbases-brian-armstrong-thi...
So, let's say HN does burn to a crisp, let's take that as given.
- What is an HN in the world in which we seem to be headed?
- What is the possibility, however slim, that HN might serve as a bulwark against that world? Is that a die worth throwing?
- What is HN's, and YC's, culpability in creating that world? I'm looking at social media, crypto, AI, AdTech, FinTech, Thiel, Musk, Andreesen, and who knows who else here, as well as general enshittification and authoritarianisation of the Internet (surveillance, propaganda, disinformation, censorship, targeted manipulation,[1] kompromat, the intertwingled and self-reinforcing surveillance capitalism/state/anarchism, killbots, etc.).
- What if any sufficient difference would change your mind? Do you, dang, have any personal moral limits at which you'd change your moderator stance, or simply wash your hands and walk away? Or not?
I borrowed Anubis's scales, and it seems to me HN compares poorly to the feather of the liberal social democratic experiment.
Turning HN into a Nazi bar[2] is also an irreversible outcome. As is turning the polity in which it resides into a fascist state.
What is HN in the world in which we seem to be headed? One of the last places where one can have a relatively sane conversation.
In the world we're headed into, truth is gone. Making an honest judgment based on your best evaluation of the evidence available to you is gone. You will parrot the current insanity that some authoritarian demands, or suffer the consequences. In that world, we really need HN, to keep our sanity, and to avoid the complete destruction of our moral character.
And if you really think that's the world we're headed to, do you think converting HN into all-anti-Trump-all-the-time is really going to be the difference between ending up there and not ending up there?
Just noting: I'm giving this some thought, it's a good question.
Though for the most part, the short answer is that HN would be either irrelevant, irredeemably corrupted itself, and/or a tool for the abusive power of that world.
Which is to say that fighting against that outcome is paramount.
The evil that is to be fought is far more than just one person. But by fighting that orientation (it's not an ideology, it's simple power-lust) is essential.
HN has had its critics going back to its origins. I'm tending to think jwz was right.
I've heard from others who were themselves prominent on HN that they're finding the site no longer tolerable, and I ask myself whether or not it is at least weekly, if not more often. And as much as I've admired much of what dang does here, there's some which makes my hair stand up. Including what he has, and has not, said in this thread.
(This is only a partial answer, and I hope to give it more consideration and justice soon.)
Is the flagging of articles an absolute number? How does the article get 100+ upvotes but still flagged? Does it mean it early hit the flag threshold to get flagged and later got the votes, or that the flags continue to outweigh the upvotes?
I was curious if the 'flagged' note that is added to articles is triggered based on a ratio of "flag"/upvotes or if it is a flat number.
To clarify an example of what I mean:
For example, if the maximum flag ratio: is 0.5, and if an article has 10 flags / 19 upvotes, then the ratio of 10/19 is > 0.5 and the flag gets triggered.
Or maybe it's just a flat number, such that any article with >20 flags is flagged.
I'm sure it's more complicated than either example, but was just curious if you could share the approximate way the 'flagged' note is added to articles?
Hey, at least we got to see what NetBSD looked like on a JavaStation before the collapse. I'm sure voting-age US citizens will really appreciate the tech caucus' focus on the real issues facing a rapidly modernizing society.
"bongodongobob, why is the president's decentralized technology defrauding American citizens?"
"Dunno, haven't you ever wondered why FastDOOM is fast though?"
I argue that is most crypto stories period. Good to know that politics is the line people die on though when the predient does it and then we just have to ignore it.
There is information in the FAQ about how to flag a post and who gets to do it, but it's unclear, at least to me, if another user with a similar karma level is able to unflag it.
I agree that a user may find the title inflammatory because it's an opinionated accusation without an explicit court decision backing it up, but I want to emphasize that official HN moderators should not be able flag this specific post as Coinbase is a YC company and happens to be one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, hence the conflict of interest in burying this story. I can't see any way how someone could contest the fact that this story presents a conflict of interest for YC.