[TimorousBestie]

> One long-standing code is that they moderate YC companies less on HN, allowing criticisms like yours to stand:

Well, that’s what dang says he does. There’s no transparency and no publicly available data that would demonstrate adherence to the rule.

> To HN's credit I haven't seen this rule violated.

I don’t think you’d observe anything different if it were violated.

[squigz]

> I don’t think you’d observe anything different if it were violated.

If the mods were in the practice of moderating like this, yes, it would almost certainly be noticed by someone whose post/comment got deleted.

HN, like every other community on the Internet, relies on trust between the users and mods. If you don't trust them, you can always leave.

[throwaway27285]

> it would almost certainly be noticed by someone whose post/comment got deleted

Would it?

HN has all sorts of sneaky punishments to keep people from noticing what's going on. Shadow bans, limiting how many comments you can post per day, sometimes outright refusing to serve you pages with a "Sorry." error, and even flagging isn't visible to the person whose comment got flagged. HN doesn't notify you in any way for any of this. How often do you check your comments while logged out? That includes old comments, of course, which need to be rechecked on a periodic basis. Archives provide some limitation to how much manipulation can happen, but flagging is a thing, can be abused by anyone with enough karma, and provides a lot of plausible deniability for dang should he opt for a stealthier approach to moderation.

Even this account is shadowbanned - and this comment automatically flagged - because I had the audacity to create an account with a VPN, in a world where VPNs are a requirement for unrestricted Internet access for a growing number of people living in "democratic" countries. The only way I know this is through testing, of course, because HN gives no indication that your account will be shadowbanned on creation.

[squigz]

> HN has all sorts of sneaky punishments to keep people from noticing what's going on

Another way of putting this is that HN has very standard mechanisms in place to combat spam and other sources of low-signal comments.

> Shadow bans, limiting how many comments you can post per day

Like these.

> Sometimes outright refusing to serve you pages with a "Sorry." error,

This just sounds like downtime/server problems. Every site has them, and even the most law-abiding posters on HN will see that sometimes.

> even flagging isn't visible to the person whose comment got flagged.

Yes it is?

> HN doesn't notify you in any way for any of this.

This is by design; HN doesn't offer notifications of anything on its own. Besides, most platforms don't usually notify people of these things by default either?

> Even this account is shadowbanned - and this comment automatically flagged - because I had the audacity to create an account with a VPN, in a world where VPNs are a requirement for unrestricted Internet access for a growing number of people living in "democratic" countries. The only way I know this is through testing, of course, because HN gives no indication that your account will be shadowbanned on creation.

I don't think you need to be so indignant. VPNs are also abused. All of these mechanisms are tradeoffs for making HN one of the best sites I've ever been on for productive, intelligent discussion; and the mods are well aware of this and manage to balance it well. For example, you were still able to register, and you and I are still able to exchange comments. If you contribute to discussions (on an account you don't just throwaway) for a little while, the limitations go away.

[jjulius]

>HN doesn't notify you in any way of this.

I'm not sure this is the supportive argument that you think it is, as HN doesn't notify users of anything akin to what you're discussing, be it positive or negative, ever. They don't have notifications whatsoever.

>Even this account is shadowbanned - and this comment automatically flagged...

No it's not. Edit: mea culpa, see response

>The only way I know this is through testing, of course...

How did you test this? Your single comment on a brand new account appears to be showing up just fine, as any new account would. Did you unflag your throwaway comment from a different account?

I get the feeling you pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable here at one point, and didn't like the result.

[squigz]

> No it's not.

It was, actually. New accounts' comments being flagged by default is, I'm fairly certain, very much a thing.

[jjulius]

Ah, you must've vouched for it. :)

Odd, I don't remember that being a thing when I joined. Mine showed up a-okay.

[TimorousBestie]

> > I don’t think you’d observe anything different if it were violated.

> If the mods were in the practice of moderating like this, yes, it would almost certainly be noticed by someone whose post/comment got deleted.

“You” in the original was referring to avaer specifically, not the generic “you.” They were the ones making the observation on little to no data.

> HN, like every other community on the Internet, relies on trust between the users and mods.

This is exactly my point. One must trust (or more precisely have faith in) them, because claims like the one up-thread are impossible to verify.

[duckmysick]

> no publicly available data that would demonstrate adherence to the rule.

What kind of data would satisfy you? I imagine any data coming directly from YC would be untrustworthy and third-party data would be incomplete (say, it wouldn't catch content removed before it's published).

Is there a similar data set for other private platforms?

[TimorousBestie]

A public moderation log would satisfy me just fine, and is common practice on other forums.