|
|
|
|
|
|
by redserk
195 days ago
|
|
|
Do recognize, you're voluntarily participating in a highly moderated forum. If one were principled in their opposition to moderation, one would not voluntarily choose to use said forum for nearly a decade ;) Part of what makes Hackernews enjoyable to read is the strong and very reasonable moderation. We aren't subject to walls of Viagra/Cialis ads or back-and-forth flamewars. I'd argue it's because of content moderation that HN is an environment that generally promotes a marketplace of ideas. |
|
|
I agree with the enjoyable part but "reasonable" would require careful examination of the things that didn't make the cut and is highly subjective. I have no idea what "strong" means.
Most moderation seems to get done by the voting system (powered by weak and very unreasonable users?)
What is missing is a user manual to formalize this social credit system. I never knew that I have to upvote the correct posts. I thought the system was curious about my opinion. Quite preposterous in hindsight. Ill make more of an effort, who knows, in a few years we might go full North Korea retroactively.
wait, did I say all that out loud?