

Ask HN: Do you think HN's censoring bring anything to the table? - Istof


======
yaur
Most of the top stories here end up on another site I visit, but here we have
thoughtful discussions on the topic even if its controversial where over there
it devolves into religious wars, stupid jokes, and trolling within about 5
minutes. The difference is not the stories, the difference is that the
moderation system encourages a different kind of discourse.

or, if you prefer the low quality version: Yes. Next question.

------
px1999
A few months ago, there was a time where a measurable percentage (like 25-50%)
of the stories on the first news page were btc-related. The topics weren't
that interesting (stuff like directly linking to peculiar transactions on the
blockchain with no critique etc).

The feed returned to normal quite abruptly so I'd assume that there was some
censorship around bitcoin-related topics (and I think I've read comments in
the past that indicate this to be the case). If this was censorship by HN,
then yes, I think it brings a lot to the table. It prevents small groups of
fanatics from ruining the site for everyone by promoting their niche interest
to excessive levels (which results in lower quality comments anyways).

------
ColinWright
Would you care to be explicit about the censorship to which you refer? Can you
give specific examples and back it up with concrete data? Personally, I'm not
sure what you might be thinking of ...

~~~
Istof
by censoring, I mean any action by HN admins that are meant to decrease
visibility of comments and/or stories

~~~
ColinWright
The comment[0] by yaur[1] pretty much says it all, and gets to the heart of
why I was asking the questions I did. You seem convinced that there is some
nefarious, under-handed, and sinister censorship going on, whereas most of
what I see is adequately explained by the published mechanisms of voting and
flagging. What makes you think there is deliberate skullduggery in play?

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7827383](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7827383)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=yaur](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=yaur)

~~~
Istof
I often see an admin posting a comment saying that they are burying a story
(or marking a story as dead, I forgot the exact wording) because they don't
agree with it... don't tell me that you have never seen it before? I will
repost my question when I see it happening again and I will include examples,
thanks for your input.

~~~
ColinWright
I've seen it - dang[0] does it regularly. It's not censorship - it's curation,
and so far every instance I've seen I've agreed with. That's why I asked if
you could provide specific examples that you don't agree with.

In particular, look at these comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826954](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826954)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826943](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826943)

In both cases the posts were explicitly _un_ killed - the opposite of
censorship.

I'm going off-line now, but I'll see any replies in the morning. To answer
your question, my feeling is that, in general and overall, the actions of the
moderators are having a positive effect in the quality both of submissions and
discussions.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang)

~~~
Istof
If the curation process was based on very specific rules, I guess I would not
call it censoring.

