[Scramblejams]

I guess with polarizing topics it comes down to the ratio of "intellectually interesting" (quote from your first link) comments, and those that engage with them in good faith, versus all the yelling and condemnation, right? And there's some fuzzy line that you want the thread to stay on one side of.

I will freely admit my view may be too dismissive and that I should change my ways, but these kinds of threads almost never feel to me like the juice is worth the squeeze. In other words, that ratio I mentioned seems out of whack. Too many good-faith comments that don't go with the thread mainstream get flagged and dead, not enough people vouch for 'em (I'm sometimes guilty of that), and the amount of invective and judgment they're met with just seems to depend on how fast they got downvoted or flagged to oblivion.

I realize I'm shouting into the wind, and you have no obligation to change any of this for me. But I really do not see how this sort of thing is good for the site long-term. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there's a certain set that needs to scream about something every month or they start vandalizing less controversial threads and it's net positive to let them have their moment. Maybe I'll go write something that auto-hides threads for me when there's been a certain proportion of flagging and downvoting.

Anyway, you've got a tough job and do it with grace. No reply necessary, but thanks for all you do.

[dang]

> these kinds of threads almost never feel to me like the juice is worth the squeeze

I agree. The trouble is that not discussing it at all is not a solution either.

> it comes down to the ratio of "intellectually interesting" (quote from your first link) comments, and those that engage with them in good faith, versus all the yelling and condemnation, right?

I wish it were that simple but I don't think it is.

> Too many good-faith comments that don't go with the thread mainstream get flagged and dead

I don't think there's a "thread mainstream" here. I think the community is deeply divided.

If you (or anyone) see good-faith comments getting mistreated in this way, we'd appreciate links so we can take a look. Sometimes we restore those comments, other times we find that the comment broke the site guidelines and thus should stay flagged. But we always look, and usually also have enough time to reply.

> I realize I'm shouting into the wind

Not at all! We're interested. We just don't necessarily have good answers.

[Scramblejams]

> The trouble is that not discussing it at all is not a solution either.

So, sending it to page 4 quick-like has too many downsides? I am not an expert in community management, I'm interested to understand why.

> I wish it were that simple but I don't think it is.

If you have the time, I'd love to read more about this.

> we'd appreciate links so we can take a look

I didn't delve deeply, but here's one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718264 In the future should I email?

> We're interested. We just don't necessarily have good answers.

Fair enough! Thank you for your patience and perseverance!

[dang]

> So, sending it to page 4 quick-like has too many downsides? I am not an expert in community management, I'm interested to understand why.

We're not experts either. It's not as if there's any foundation for this job other than just doing it, badly.

I'll try to explain how I personally think about this. One thing is clear: the core value of HN is intellectual curiosity so that's what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). I'd refine that one bit further by saying it's broad intellectual curiosity. There's also narrow intellectual curiosity, which has its place but isn't what we're trying for here. (And there are other forms of curiosity, e.g. social curiosity, which motivates things like celebrity news and gossip. Those also have their place but are less relevant here.)

What's the difference between broad and narrow intellectual curiosity? If you think of curiosity as desire and willingness to take in new information, then I'd say "broad" means wanting to take in new information about anything—whatever's going on in reality, the world, etc., because it's there; and "narrow" means wanting new information, but only about a restricted subset of things. That means there's an excluded set of topics—things about which one could take in new information, but for whatever reason, doesn't want to. Maybe it's too painful, for example.

What I'm saying is that the current topic is one of a few topics which are painful (and the pain shows up as anger in the comments), but which broad intellectual curiosity simply cannot exclude. If we exclude it, then we fail to optimize for what we're optimizing for. In that sense, not discussing it amounts to failing.

But discussing it also amounts to failing, because it's not realistically very possible for this community to discuss it while remaining within the site guidelines. It's too painful, too activating, and crosses too many of the red lines that past generations have left pulsating in all our bodies. That is why I said "I wish it were that simple but I don't think it is".

We can try to mitigate that through moderation ("please don't cross into personal attack", "please don't post flamebait", etc.), but those lines are particularly feeble in this case. There's little scope for those to land as neutral with commenters and readers. It too easily feels like we're adding to the conflict when we post that way.

Therefore this is a case where we can only fail, and all we can do is follow what Beckett said and fail better. Failing better is still failing and still feels like failing—there's no way out of that. I'm just pretty sure that the alternative in this case would be worse overall, even if it felt easier in the short term. It's always easier to go narrow in the short term. But we're in this for the long haul.

[Scramblejams]

Thank you for your thoughtful response, that helps me understand more where the site leadership is coming from.

BTW the comment I linked above[0] has been flagged and is dead again, after I thought it had been restored. Did it violate site guidelines? Or did somebody come back in and flag it again?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718264

[dang]

Ah sorry I forgot to respond about that. Yes, I restored it but forgot to turn off the flags on it. I've done that now.

Emailing is the way to make sure we see something.

[tome]

> > these kinds of threads almost never feel to me like the juice is worth the squeeze

> I agree. The trouble is that not discussing it at all is not a solution either.

Not discussing it at all is certainly a solution. There are plenty of other fora where these issues can be discussed (Reddit and Twitter, off the top of my head). HN does not have to also take up that mantle.

> > Too many good-faith comments that don't go with the thread mainstream get flagged and dead

> I don't think there's a "thread mainstream" here. I think the community is deeply divided.

It's quite obvious that there's a thread mainstream. One perspective absolutely dominates the top level posts and replies. Top level posts with a different point of view have been flag killed very thoroughly. I would make a contrarian post (the type that HN normally loves) to try share my knowledge of the situation (which I bet is significantly deeper than 99% of the commenters here) but it's not worth it when I expect it to get instantly flag killed.

> If you (or anyone) see good-faith comments getting mistreated in this way, we'd appreciate links so we can take a look. Sometimes we restore those comments, other times we find that the comment broke the site guidelines and thus should stay flagged. But we always look, and usually also have enough time to reply.

But the discussion will have moved on by then. There are simply not enough moderator resources to moderate a discussion on this topic. That's not your fault, that's just the way it is, but it does lead to HN becoming a worse place.