|
What HN's net moderation system does (user flags, automated moderation, direct admin-moderator actions, shadowbans, penalties) is limit all extreme views, to the extent that they conflict with HN's Prime Directive, "to optimize for intellectual curiosity": <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27901918>. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the net bias created is less left/right than pro status quo: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>. Challenges to conventional thinking are more than fair, but they've got to avoid falling foul of one of HN's guidelines, particularly increasing substantiality with time, thoughtful criticism, generic negativism, not fulminating, no personal attacks, not sneering (including at the rest of the community), good faith, responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of your interlocutor, avoiding flamebait / generic tangents / Internet tropes. And most importantly in this vein, not using HN for political or ideological battle (including nationalistic flamewars). <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> As to flags: mods do frequently reverse them for both posts and comments: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45353896> <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>. I don't always agree with mods, but I often do, and even where I disagree, I understand the underlying principles being employed. I've been an active critic / commentator on moderation for much of my time on-site (dating to 2011). |