| HN Mirror

Those are good arguments. I'm not sure what to tell you that won't repeat what I already said. (Btw, I'm confused by your A and B examples because I couldn't find any language like A in this thread.)

I've been trying to describe how we (try to) operate this community. I think the lesson I'm drawing from exchanges like this (not just this one, but many others) is that this can't work and is therefore a mistake in this context. All that hits the reader is the ghastly discrepancy between the two layers (moderation minutiae vs. starvation and slaughter). It comes across as dissociative, like responding to tragedy with trivia. This is so built in to the situation that communication becomes impossible. That's why people respond by repeating claims about the much more important topic, as if I had been arguing with them about that.

> It's much easier to spread lies than it is to debunk them. Often such posts contain some half truths filled with a bunch of lies, the debunking of which requires knowledge and effort while the fabrication of lies requires zero effort. By the time you debunked the obvious lies, the propagandist has already spammed 10 more comments denying or justifying Genocide with the exact same rhetoric and arguments that Nazis use to deny or justify the holocaust. That's a losing game

Yes, I know. A lot of what we do here is to try to maintain a space where something other than that becomes possible. Unfortunately, what most people want is for the mods to enforce their view and ban the opposing side. This is related to the certainty that the opposing view is so wrong and bad that it could only be held in bad faith by bad people.

No one seems to notice—or rather, everyone is under so much pressure that there's no room to care—that to actually do this would be to stop all discussion. A corollary is that, when we don't do it, people feel like we are complicit in the crimes of the other side.

> Something also tells me [...] the overall obvious pattern [...] many people have observed [...] others report

Phrases like this come up often. I can tell you from long experience that they invariably describe an image of HN and/or HN moderation that is profoundly inaccurate. They don't match how the community really functions nor how we really moderate it, nor what we're trying to achieve. What they do match is a subset of datapoints (often a rather small subset) that happen to match the image. (I don't mean this in any way personally either btw! It's super common, from every side of every topic.)

These images seem impervious to change. It makes no difference to show someone datapoints that contradict their image; and I'm pretty sure that any statistical study of the entire dataset, however it turned out, wouldn't change anyone's mind either. This makes me think that these images come from people's pre-existing beliefs about the world (society, power, one's group, oneself, etc.), such that we notice the datapoints which confirm and reconstitute our image. I'm sure that no one does this consciously, but it's a strikingly consistent phenomenon.

To pick just one example from what you listed, there's no way that we would throttle anyone for "arguing against genocide". That's absurd. We might moderate them for breaking HN's rules while they were doing it, but you won't ever find that interpretation circulating in any of these claims.