Would like to mention Dang here, he is doing an extraordinary job in keeping this place sane and civilised.
I really am wondering how he can read and react to so many comments quickly.
Dang, care to elaborate? Do you see a flat list of new comments, review them quickly? Do you use a moderation tool that scans the mood / tone / aggresiveness of a post? How do you do the screening and the replies? Manually?
I used to think so until the shadow restriction/moderation stuff. I must agree with the quality part though, just not the methods. But like reddit and other platform, the majority of users don't give a shit about this stuff until it's their turn. Oh well, shit is.
I have posted one or two outlandish things whilst enjoying a few too many drinks and I have been properly downvoted; I have never seen or heard of anyone being restricted/moderated inappropriately. Any specific examples that come to mind?
Edit, to add: I also say ridiculous things when sober, on occasion. I didn’t mean to imply that the only time my mighty brain falters is when I’m inebriated.
It’s the only recent comment of mine that went fairly negative, and free internet advocates are pretty militant. It’s not rocket science to make the inference.
Edit: it looks like that rate limit was put on your account several years ago. I didn't look up what was going on at the time, but I've taken it off now.
(In the future, I think we'll probably make penalties like this expire after a while - the problem is it's not so easy to tell which accounts are still breaking the site guidelines vs. which ones are fine, short of manual review, and we don't have much capacity for more manual review. In the meantime, anyone is welcome to ask what's going on with their account and we'll always take a look and answer; and when it seems safe to remove a penalty like this, we always do.)
with all due respect, this sort of response and tone is exactly why that kind of throttling exists:
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
I commented in response because a comment downstream from what you linked felt much more caustic and may have been a bigger suspect than the first one. But by the nature of threaded comments, you will see less participation in a deeper comment. And I'm sure HN accounts for that. (-10 on a top level comment that was the first comment on the page may not be as bad as -1 on a deep comment).
If the repo is correct, these features are made to throttle comments that can cause flame wars. So, food for thought. A lot of times it's less about what you say and how you say it.
> with all due respect, this sort of response and tone is exactly why that kind of throttling exists:
> > don't cross-examine
Something about a mirror. Or: do you think you deserve aggressive throttling now?
Honestly, some of my comments might jive less with HN’s echo chamber, but that doesn’t mean they’re not based in fact, and it doesn’t make them inciting.
Edit:
I’m trying to practice taking complaints as actionable feedback, so
> So, food for thought. A lot of times it's less about what you say and how you say it.
I feel like this isn't getting through to you, but I wanted to at least try and reach out. Feedback is important, but I can't force people to take it to heart.
One more guideline to keep in mind:
>Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
going around calling the community you comment in an echo chamber in order to justify your views never changed anyone's minds. And insulting others as a group nor individual doesn't make your factual statements stronger to begin with. It's the same useless fluff you complain about. If your audience truly doesn't appreciate your views, you should seek one that does.
I was on the fence sending the last comment. But if the user is instead going to try and make it all about me.
, I wanted to send one last comment to try and emphasize the community aspect of how the rules work. I'm a bit neurodivergent, so I do want to assume good faith whenever someone feels like they can't understand the rules and needs an explicit pointing to what and why something is there.
But yes, we're doing the very thing the rules were meant to prevent, my apologies.
Likewise and I was in the wrong. I hate to beat a dead horse but look at my reply to a sibling comment in this comment thread for an example.
My honest opinion: I have geopolitical views that tend to upset ideological people which includes...coughpowerfulcough folks and got stuck with reputation accordingly (whatever, no complaints). I normally avoid politics because in the US at least, I am too contrarian and "centrist", but on HN people do engage and correct me or educate me when I am incorrect. At least it used to be so, times are achanging. But tech people keep being political so it's hard to avoid. One particular thread about signal or something, I made a point about Silicon Valley tech types presuming things and interfering with politics in other countries (something about signal or other apps enabling one side of politics to win over the other I think), I think that comment was the last straw before the restrictions (can't be sure though, just guessing), this must have been in 2022. But as the saying goes "if a cop tails a car for 500 miles, that car is getting a ticket!", I am sure I have done plenty more that violate the rules, my only complaint is on how my "punishment" was in secret with no opportunity to self-correct. Maybe like reddit, HN is best lurked?
I hope to see better times on HN and make dang's job easier on my part at least. happy 2024!
Show us some of the stuff you said so we can judge that ourselves?
People can still see with Show Dead turned on, over the many years have never seen anything there that wasn't either inflammatory, spammy or otherwise very low quality.
In my understanding, comments that need moderator intervention would be flagged, not just downvoted. Downvotes and flags are not what I talked about though, this might help with context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773957#38777787
HN is the only site where I even comment publicly. No warning restrictions where you don't even know if you are restricted == shadow moderarion. Probably best I simply take a hint though, i should spend my time on more productive things anyways. Although, I really do enjoy healthy discourse with people who know the subjects in question far more than I do.
HN should either have different rules for non-technical threads or avoid political/sensitive topics altogether imho.
Moderation isn't easy, and I'm only being so critical because I am personally affected. Chances are this comment I spent time composing won't go through and I would have to abandon it because of the restrictions. An unfortunate side effect of it all is others like you can't see I am restricted. Or you would reply to me and I can't reply back because of those same restrictions.
I hope we all can take a step back (especially myself) and and forge a new path where we trest others as we would like to be treated (can't ask for more).
I really wish other moderated sites had something like showdead. It's nice to see examples of what kind of content isn't meant to be on a site. (but isn't illegal and purged totlly) reveddit used to exist for reddit, but was killed during the API pricing debacle. A shame I need to create an account to use it though.
I really wish there was some sort of open standard on fair moderation. Honestly, the parallels between bad managers and bad moderators is crazy. They both come down to poor communication and not understanding game theory stuff. Playing chess against a population playing checkers.
I disagree slightly. Usually HN is fine, but there's a lot of weird shifts in site culture. Sometimes you'll see comments on political submissions slide way to the right and shit gets flagged. My tinfoil regarding this is that HN is getting freep'd[0] - a thread gets linked on a conservative or far-right forum and is either flag bombed or spammed with propaganda comments. As mentioned in the "implicit downrank of DEI" section, the moderators try to unflag these threads (since they're relevant and people want to talk about them) but they just get flagged by the community a second time.
If I had access to a better moderated community not being actively attacked by the far right, I'd use it. But I'm not aware of any[1].
[0] Short for "Free Republic" - a conservative political forum that would ballot stuff online polls for the sake of pushing their political agenda.
[1] Note that I stopped posting to Reddit after /u/Spez decided to powertrip to kill a mod protest over third-party API clients.
'Attacked' is a bit subjective, but there are certainly trigger topics that attract large numbers of strongly right-leaning posters. I won't list these topics as they are basically exactly the 'culture wars' topics that you'd expect.
I do personally find HN quite uncomfortable when discussion strays into social issues. I obviously don't feel that unwelcome here as I've been here since 2009. But there is a lot of bottled-up hostility to certain groups of people that can be released when the discussion takes a certain turn. And my subjective perception is that this has got much worse over the past decade.
Extremist comments usually get flagged eventually, but lots of people have already read them by the time that happens, and you can post outrageous things here without actually getting your account banned. It's galling to be a member of group X, see an unambiguously hateful comment about group X, and then see this same account continuing to post for years afterwards.
Like a lot of non-mainstream forums, HN lives in a weird world, especially after the ban on political posting (here) and the rise of greater web content moderation (here and abroad) post 2015-2016.
With tech being a space that attracts everything from VC/finance/business people (usually a bit righter-wing), academics and journalists (usually more left) and hackers (who knows/free thinkers), I’m fairly surprised at the overall level of cohesion here.
One thing I’m more or less convinced of is that the tech world has changed a lot from the millennial era of “free thinker”ism and Obama-era liberal optimism. We now skew older, more conservative than 2009 (not necessarily right wing, but less “move fast and break things”), and, in some cases, more disillusioned with the trajectory of tech from a cool, nerdy backwater (pre dotcom boom) to a major cultural and economic engine.
As a side note, there are several good articles and documentaries that track cultural trends in HN, 4chan, reddit, and other online spaces in the transition from the wild-west to the walled garden. Will post links if I can dig them up.
Autism is not a disease. Nor is wearing an animal costume as a hobby.
Also, we probably shouldn't call it Aspergers, because naming something you are after the person the Nazis hired to decide whether or not you needed to be 'healed' of it[0][1] is kind of... really terrible? Like, I don't know how we let Hans Asperger get away with this shit.
> shit gets flagged. My tinfoil regarding this is that HN is getting freep'd[0] - a thread gets linked on a conservative or far-right forum and is either flag bombed or spammed with propaganda comments.
With less aluminium foil: HN has an crude anti-flamewar system that roughly triggers when the ratio comments/upvotes is greater than 1, and the post is quickly deranked.
Often this means it is a controversial post, but I've seen it happen with two or three posts/Ask HN of mine where a vibrant discussion causes them to disappear from the frontpage after 1 hour because commenters were too active and triggered the anti-flamewar system, which is quite disappointing.
Please, not everything on the Internet revolves around your political issues. But if it were the case of a thread linked elsewhere and flooded, this system would trigger as well.
Can we stop labeling everyhing you disagree with or anyone who disagrees with your world view as "far right". By doing so, you are perpetuating a false dichotonmy when there is a diverse political spectrum. Also, leftists attack forums as well
I hate this idea that discussion on HN is inherently "better" or "more civilised" than in other forums. Some HN users will say the most outrageous things but with a superficial layer of "civility".
Parts of this site were a cesspool during the pandemic. No matter your position on it, discussion was of really low quality. Certain other emotionally charged topics (anything Apple, anything politics related, Elon Musk) also attract really bad discussion.
By and large, humans suck and aren't capable of reasonable debate when emotion runs high, and this place is no exception.
Nothing particularly wrong with saying "outrageous" things if that's what you personally believe. People should be able to just speak their minds in good faith without shame. If others don't like those ideas, oh well. They're not invalidated by being "outrageous".
Discussion here is certainly a lot better than many other places on the internet that will just straight up ban you if you post ideas the moderators consider wrongthink. Moderation here has been pretty fair. I don't generally see people getting censored here. Sometimes discussions get out of hand and dang asks people to stop reducing the quality of the site. That's absolutely fine and they're actually quite nice about it.
> Nothing particularly wrong with saying "outrageous" things if that's what you personally believe.
You can have that opinion, but I'll just point out that there's enough people who feel alienated if straight up racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, islamophobia or endorsement of terrorist organisations are tolerated. Maybe you feel that these people just shouldn't participate on this site, but I'd much rather the bigots didn't participate. Either way, it's a choice.
> Discussion here is certainly a lot better than many other places on the internet [...]
No, I disagree, it's just different. People are biased everywhere, it's just that HN users tend to have different biases than, say, certain subreddits.
People thanking the censor and exposing their defense mechanisms is quite the dystopian sight. I guess I must be one of those paid instigators and every positive feedback I receive is from people I personally brought in from the outside.
This whole thread could be full of people expressing their dissatisfaction with the way HN is being moderated and most would never know. At least everyone is safe from a healthy debate on important subjects like an objective comparison of the US health care system with comparable systems the moderators censored last week.
I have no more intentions of participating in this toxic community. It's pretty evident everyone with a brain left already.
Moderation != Censorship. Any online community without moderation is doomed. By now we have decades of proof for this, so I'm baffled that people still don't understand it.
Another example of a defense mechanism: The strawman falacy. In other terms: That guy that said all moderation is bad - you sure showed him.
Somehow all the disinformation that gets posted on US economic rivals gets unmoderated, while all the shit that's going on in the US or is committed by it's military (or it's sibling the Israeli military) remain completely undebated. There is literally no forum to discuss the wrongdoings of the US in Iraq that lead to the war in the first place and cost over a million people their lives. Have fun repeating your mistakes over and over and sending your children to die and kill other children. And you morons hate the Chinese and Russians more with every day and for all the propaganda that gets posted on this forum.
I can understand now how the doctors must have felt during corona, with all the idiots telling them corona isn't real or dangerous, because they read a headline on reddit/9gag/HN.
... which, anecdotally, I learned about JUST after getting a comment on there. Imagine my surprise at learning about this (in a manner totally unrelated to the post I wrote that made it to the list), and seeing my own writing as the most recent item on the list.
Not at present. The links aragonite mentioned all exist, but are determined by upvotes. The /highlights page (for comments) is a manually curated list. But if anyone sees a comment that's good enough to be on /highlights, please let us know at hn@ycombinator.com. We don't want to be the only ones finding these things!
Unfortunately it still doesn't mention "rate limited" accounts[0], which is extremely confusing when it happens to you. It's happened to me on this account, I can't comment more than 5 times per some arbitrary period - I'm guessing 24 hour UTC.
No explanation or information is given - you don't even know until HN seems broken and you go searching. dang mentioned that's something they'd like to impove, but given the slow movement of HN features, I doubt it will.
Note that none of this is meant as a slight on dang - I respect the work he does and really like the site, but it doesn't make it less frustrating. The result will be me rolling a new account (against site guidelines), as I have no other privacy preserving way of handling the issue.
> dang often says that he's concerned about protecting HN as a vessel. But he seems less concerned about the truthfulness of the contents of the vessel. So IMO, HN is less appropriate as a place for reasoned, free discussion, and more appropriate as a place to gauge the opinions of certain demographics.
>HN is less appropriate as a place for reasoned, free discussion, and more appropriate as a place to gauge the opinions of certain demographics.
has HN ever claimed to be a place for "free" discussion? I feel the sentiment of "free speech forums" was cracking at the seams some 18-20 years ago, and compeltely fell apart around 9-10 years ago.
If you want unfiltered opinions, you go to a place with minimal moderation. HN was never that.
> But he seems less concerned about the truthfulness of the contents of the vessel.
It puzzles me when people say such things. We don't have a truth meter [1]; how are we supposed to decide what's true vs. false? By definition, there's zero consensus on any contentious topic. Should we pick one view and impose it? Whose would that be? my own? Even if I thought I knew the truth about everything (and I am very far from feeling that way), I can tell you how well that would go over: everyone would hate it.
There's another level too: are we supposed to ban people for being wrong? Being wrong is part of finding out the truth; of being curious. No one makes it to the truth in a single jump, nor on their own. Obviously people need the freedom to be wrong about things.
And another level: HN is about intellectual curiosity and interesting conversation. Interesting conversation is not always a pure sequence of true statements. Curiosity wants to figure out the truth, of course—but optimizing for curiosity [2] is not the same thing as optimizing for truth. The latter would mean excluding speculation, for example. That would be less interesting!
When someone wants the mods to decide what is true and moderate by that, I can't fathom what they mean, unless they just want moderators to support whatever they agree with and ban whatever they disagree with. No one would put it that crudely, but no one has explained what else is being advocated. One needn't consider this for very long at the general level (i.e. the level of the entire community) to realize how it could never work.
The very people making this point about the "contents of the vessel" would be at each other's throats if one asked them to declare what the truth actually is, since the first thing they'd discover is they have wildly differing views of it. That's why this point can only be made, or agreed with, in the abstract. The moment you cross into claiming any specific truth about a contentious topic, others will immediately protest that it is not a truth at all and that the opposite is true.
Figuring out the truth is a social process—it happens by discourse, communication, exchange. This is everyone's job together, not some special power of the admins. The admins' job is to facilitate that process. This does not involve declaring what the truth is and imposing it on those who disagree, any more than it's a referee's job to decide which net the ball or the puck should go into.
> The admins' job is to facilitate that process. This does not involve declaring what the truth is and imposing it on those who disagree
I mean, you’ve detached comments from threads for “creating a risk for an inflammatory discussion” (paraphrase), without detaching the opposing view’s comments.
This might come from the good intention of keeping HNs spirit (“protecting the vessel”), but the net effect is still that you are picking sides / who’s voice gets to be heard. Either everyone gets detached or no one does, otherwise you do not get to lay a claim to neutrality.
The same happens with the rate limit crap. I’m pretty certain most people who get hit by it aren’t actually spamming or causing problems, they’re just telling facts or viewpoints that (a subsect of) HN is uneasy with.
I am very aware modding is mostly a thankless job with no reward, so I guess like in open source I don’t really get to complain unless I put up effort or money. So if you feel like ignoring me that would be completely fair.
you’ve detached comments from threads for “creating a risk for an inflammatory discussion” (paraphrase), without detaching the opposing view’s comments.
You should find some examples where the detaching went wrong, in your estimate. Usually things get detached not for creating a risk but actually starting an unrelated flamewar or innocent swerve to a topic not strongly related to the original comment which then consumes the subthread.
Those examples don't have to do with picking sides in an argument or making calls about that's true vs. false.
If users break the site guidelines, we moderate them regardless of which side they're on, whether the comment is true or false or we agree with it or not.
I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier.
Likewise as said earlier, I understand you have limited time and will. I understand having only X amount of those to spend on each decision. And with your experience, you probably have developed a good intuition for which comments need to be sussed out to preserve the peace. That’s honestly fine with me, just don’t make claims that a decision like that preserves a balanced view of a discussion. That’s where the rub lies for me.
> If users break the site guidelines
They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines.
> I remember the person I was responding to making a case that a continuous push for women in education was good, and me stating that for a long while now, men have actually been behind in education in both high school and university. You decided to cleave my comment from visibility but not theirs, for the reason I stated earlier.
I believe you! but what I'm saying is that this had nothing to do with your particular view or with somehow endorsing the other comment as "true" and yours as "false". It would be interesting to take a look at the specific case if you can dig up the link.
> They’re written in such a way that any comment that does not sit well with the larger part of the community (or even just a thread) can be explained to violate the guidelines.
I'd say that's true up to about 30%. There's still a lot of bedrock there. That's on purpose—we want them to be general enough to apply to lots of situations, but not so vague as to apply arbitrarily to anything.
> The result will be me rolling a new account (against site guidelines), as I have no other privacy preserving way of handling the issue.
I intentionally stay anon online - it's how I was raised and how I think everyone should be. All of my various accounts have sprinkles of mistruths - nothing important enough to impact the discussion, but enough to keep it difficult to link them. I doubt dang (with good reason) would accept an email from an obviously burner address - what would be the point?
And "behaving" is the complex part. As I don't know what I was invisibly banhammered for, I'm unsure what needs correcting here.
Yeah, the karma requirements mean you frequently see people adding noise to discussions rather than signal, just to get out there and seen. I rarely comment and haven't hit the 501 threshold to downvote despite being here for a number of years, mostly because I just upvote what I agree with rather than posting a "me too".
(And I'm now concerned that this comment will feel like a "me too" :) )
I'd propose participation for X days and a very loose karma metric (e.g. non-negative karma to block out consistent hecklers) as a compromise. You don't want someone who posted once and disappears for months to be given elevated permissions, because the idea of the karma gate is to adjust to how the community works before getting more features.
semi-artbituarily, I'd say 2-3 months worth of distinct days making a comment or post should be enough time.
One undocumented heuristic that I wish was documented better is that repeated submissions to the same domain, especially without discussion activity, leads to an automated shadow ban. This is just from what I’ve observed browsing /new with Show Dead turned on. There are lots of people submitting their own blog posts or repeated posts from their favorite news outlets who have been shadow banned. Vouching provides a mechanism for restoring posts of particular quality, but most of these people aren’t trying to spam, they just don’t know this unspoken rule.
That's connected to this guideline (from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): "Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity."
If people submit primarily their own stuff, our software eventually starts classifying the account as "promotional" and starts filtering the posts.
People are totally welcome to submit their own work—that's great—but to use HN as intended, they should do that as part of a diverse set of submissions on unrelated/interesting things. There are too many bloggers/marketers/writers out there that use HN merely as yet-another-channel for the content they're pushing, and that's definitely not in the curious spirit which is supposed to animate HN.
there's a slight difference between "your own stuff" and "same domain"...
I don't know how many false positives would fans/people with narrow sharing interest make, but slight editing of the guideline might help make them less "false"
I'm not sure that makes much difference from a quality-of-HN point of view. That is, if an account is (mostly) posting a single domain, and also is (mostly) the only account posting that domain, that doesn't seem to me so different from using HN "primarily for promotion". Or did I misunderstand you?
I'm not sure if this is undocumented, but I've noticed that submitted links sometimes have either the pathname or search parameters portion of their URL truncated or stripped entirely. Sometimes the truncation happens after a slight delay.
For example, if you try to submit a link to a particular Google Books page, say the one I just tried:
the link will remain intact for a short while before losing its search parameters and turning into a link to the book itself rather than to a page in it.
Possibly canonical links. HN looks at the submissions and updates the links to the canonical link if present. I'm on mobile so not able to double check the Google books page at the moment, but if you view source check to see if there's a canonical link in there. This also bites some blogging sites that end up with a canonical link to their base http://blog.example.com on all their posts.
Jtsummers's answer is correct, but we turn off canonicalization for some classes of URLs and I think you've found a good example of that. I've exempted Google Books links for the future and put your submitted URL back in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38774261.
Thank you for compiling this list. I have been using the site since 2007 and had never looked into the classic page (assumed it was an old stylesheet or something similar). Also had no idea about some of those special URLs such as noobcomments.
If a user has 31 Karma, they can also vouch for a [dead] submission/comment. A vouched submission/comment has its rank restored (and potentially improved as the vouch can counteract the effects of flags).
Is this consistent? I recently vouched for something on the New page and it wasn't restored.
One other thing I would like to ask: I currently bookmark about 20 users whose comments I find especially insightful across a wide range of subject matter expertise. Is there another way/better way to do this?
> I currently bookmark about 20 users whose comments I find especially insightful across a wide range of subject matter expertise. Is there another way/better way to do this?
The list at https://news.ycombinator.com/topcolors is definitely not "the complete set of colors users have set" as claimed. I know this because it doesn't include my top color (namely #64BFBD).
I once submitted this link to the front page, which promptly took down HN because it had no caching.
I fired off an email to Scott, frantically telling him "I think I took down HN. If you’re scrambling to figure out what’s wrong, it’s because so-and-so story is on the front page, and you can fix it by booting it off." A minute or two later the site came back to life, so I emailed saying "oh, never mind. I guess it was something else." And to my surprise he emailed back saying you were exactly right, thanks.
Presumably they either added caching, prevented it from going to the front page, froze the list for posterity, or it’s still a ticking time bomb that can take down HN again if you happen to submit it. Either way, maybe the explanation of your missing topcolor is there somewhere.
Looks like it was updated to include that. As someone who is color blind I never noticed that the submission numbers have alternating red and green colors! That was new to me!
(For the curious, this is because HN only loads profiles into memory whenever users post. Then they stay in memory until a server reboot, which seems to happen every day or two.)
Everything I hear about HN makes me feel like it's a hobby side project hosted on an old laptop in someones basement, and not literally the PR arm of a giant venture capital company.
I’m grumpy because I am 100% sure that the “automatic downweighing” is applied to me (my comments are often below faded despite multiple upvotes), but it’s never been explained.
This actually happened to me when I first signed up and after emailing dang asking why, it went away. I don’t think I ever got any actual explanation but I think it must have been some false positive which, once corrected, would never recur.
Well, given the name I assume it's a ranking? Though some colors are weird and it would be hard to believe a lot of people use it (like #fafafd or #0082a0 )
(dir profdir*) essentially returns an `ls` of the directory in which user profiles are stored. (Yes, they are (or were) stored to disk, not a database.) This was one reason it was hard to add a feature to rename users, which Dan somehow figured out.
So it takes the `ls` of that directory, giving a list in mostly random order, and loads them one by one, putting them into a hash table, whose iteration order is also random.
In modern times, profs* is populated in a lazy fashion whenever users post after a server reboot.
It does have a "try-order?" option, which gives a deterministic ordering if set. But whenever I set it, I sometimes get strange errors, at least on MacOS. Since it's disabled by default, I doubt they set it. Even if they did, it would be ordered alphabetically, which means your topcolor wouldn't be anywhere close to the top unless someone else whose name starts with "a" also set it.
The second chance pool blew my mind the first time I got an email to resubmit. You figure if a post gets no traction, that’s just how it is. But I’ll never forget getting that email.
My post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37956065 got no traction when I posted it and quickly disappeared from "/new" without many people noticing it. The next day, I received an email that this post was entered into the second chance pool. Then sometime later, it got picked for the front page and led to a good amount of community participation! Thanks to the second chance pool, I received several interesting demo submissions to my hobby project!
I've noticed a shadowbanned behavior. If you submit a link that is a banned domain, you will notice that the 'discuss' link is missing and the post doesn't show up at all (but you see it).
Turn on show dead in your profile and visit the "new" link (https://news.ycombinator.com/newest). You'll see a lot of [dead] links, those are the sort GP is referencing. [flagged][dead] are killed by user action (flags).
There's lot of articles from this site on HN, including recently. But:
* It seems low-quality, at times almost like the Weekly World News. On HN, we sometimes replace even high-quality science writing with primary sources (when the paper is recent and the writing is just a summary).
* It's high-volume, which is problematic in that it incentivizes users to submit lots and lots of stuff from this one site; front page slots are the scarcest resource on HN and everything competes for it, so high-volume low-mid-quality sites tend to get downweighted.
* It's slathered with ads and bait-y gimmicks.
If there's something on this site that you think would make a good thread for HN, you can probably just find whatever it's blogspamming and submit that instead.
I did warn him that people might complain about side effects
Edit: believe it or not, we got more complaints about this. Some people picked their top color specifically to go nicely with the orange Y! So I've reverted this change, except for the Christmas case. Users who have set their topcolor don't see the Christmas top bar anyhow, so don't have to worry.
is it possible that NetNewsWire (possibly other rss readers as well) don't show the favicon for https://news.ycombinator.com/rss anymore because of this change? I noticed this a few days ago
HN is still serving the orange Y for favicons. Only the Y to the left of "Hacker News" in the top bar now has a transparent background.
However, there was a brief period where we were serving the transparent Y for favicons before I noticed that and corrected it; I wonder if the transparent Y somehow got into a cache? Is there a way to force-refresh?
Unfortunately the issue still persists and it doesn't seem to be related to caching.
I think the problem might be that NetNewsWire doesn't support SVG favicons (/y18.svg) and that /favicon.ico isn't available as a fallback. Were there any changes regarding these files recently?
Don’t make me start emailing you every day to update the default font size from 12px to a modern default like 16px. This isn’t 2007 when everybody had 1024x768 monitors. I had to dust my monocle out of storage before adjusting my browser zoom level.
I'm curious about the full list of automatic headline changes. They seem reasonable, but it's worth knowing that if they change a headline for the worse, you can immediately edit the submission and restore the original headline (or an "in the spirit of" edit that fits within HN's character limit).
I just learned that a username in green means it’s a new account. I’d noticed green usernames before but always kinda assumed they were some kind of “higher status” accounts. Like verified accounts on Xitter.
There is another hidden feature, a "weak shadowban" which places your comment lower on the page than default. I think it is a manual flag set by some unknown heuristic, basically a "we don't like you but not enough to ban you" signal. This happened to me several months ago after a heated political debate and still is in effect (I'm sure it will happen to this comment, for example).
You're rate limited. So am I. Even emailed dang about it. I suppose my case is similar enough: started happening some time after some discussion that went wrong. I really don't remember which but I don't deny participating in them.
Truth be told it's probably a good thing for someone like me. HN is addictive and getting kicked out after 5 posts is essentially a better noprocrast setting. I actually thought it was the noprocrast setting at first since at the time I had just begun experimenting with it.
It's the automatic downranking of posts that hurt me. Noticed it recently. I've been trying to be more selective towards which posts I reply to but it feels pointless since any and all comments immediately sink towards the bottom of the page, unseen.
A smaller problem with this system: taking the time to write a comment, submitting it and only then being denied. I actually wasn't sure if this comment was going to go through but the timer must have reset. I hesitate to suggest some kind of indicator. It would be very helpful but it would also create a timed reward schedule not entirely dissimilar from those Skinner's box simulators they call mobile games.
I don't think its rate limiting because I'll go for days without posting and the first post is downgraded. I have never seen a "you're posting too much" message.
A lot of these backend features/behaviors are super interesting to read through, especially in regards to the "flame war detector" section. I've only ever seen link aggregator websites such as Reddit relying on community moderation & spam detectors rather than anything to improve the quality of the discourse.
I don't see anything related to IP protection. For example, if I log out and log in with another user, can I upvote a comment? If so, this can lead to vote manipulation. Browser fingerprints are useless if the user is using Adblockers or an extension stripping that information while submitting data.
What is preventing vote manipulation here? Signing up is so easy without email so I think there should be something.
If the comment depth is 3 or more, reply links are withheld until the comments age a while. The amount of aging is a function of the depth. You can get around it by clicking on the comment's timestamp to go to its own page.
Is there a reason for the workaround? Like, it's a super secret way for gurus to avoid the friction?
Presumably the feature is there to avoid low effort replies to bait. Just about any amount of friction is good enough to make most people give up in that use case.
>Hacker News allows people to use the old front page ranking algorithm, which only counts votes from early users. Early users are defined as being created before Feb 13, 2008.
anybody remember the significance of that date? i apparently joined five days later, and i'm guessing i was part of some wave of new signups triggered by some event.
HN also has rate limits on making comments for certain users. The limit is easy to hit and takes hours to go away. This results in having to ignore people's questions because it will waste a comment contributing to one's rate limit. One can also respond to people by editing one's comment, but that has poor ux.
This is an annoying feature which I have encountered. I know it is to calm heated discussions, but the ambiguity of the message is belittling. I'm not overwhelming the database; just tell me how long I have if you're going to put me in timeout for a few hours.
It isn't a frequent issue, but putting duct tape on someone's mouth when they're talking about something they care about does not calm them down, even if it achieves the primary goal.
Had it in the past on my acct. It always showed up when I posted on topics about trees and commented faster than normal. Wasn't aware it was a thing until emailing HN and dang mentioned it.
I'd maybe suggest updating the message to include some approximate time the limit expires. 'Come back in a few hours' or something. I say this because it was unusual enough for me to hit that I'd rewrite my comments thinking it was some kind of word flag I'd tripped, then try to repost it in 5-10 minutes only to have it fail again.
You’re talking about the “you’re posting too fast, please slow down” message? IME it’s not a rate limit but a passive-aggressive way of banning someone from a conversation for some amount of time.
Not the OP but I think that's what the OP had in mind, yeah.
It's interesting because that limit has made me even more "radical" (by the unwritten standards of HN), i.e. when I know that I only have a limited amount of comments per day to make my point I use those comments in a more "push-y" manner by responding to the most provocative replies to what I had previously said, while also ignoring replying to comments that are too bland. Which means that I go by the logic of "why should I reply to this reasonable comment when there's this other more radical comment that's a lot more thorough and violent when trying to debunk what I had just written? I should use my limited number of comments by answering to the latter, not the former".
One of the many paradoxes of confrontation ("war") at work, that is if you regard many of the discussions in here as confrontation (even "war") of ideas.
* > Moderators occasionally unkill such threads if they see it in time, although it rarely sticks
Moderators sometimes turn off the flags on posts like this, in which case the thread will usually stay on the front page.
* > Hacker News allows users to see what the front page looks like at any point in time
This wording makes me squeamish because the /front pages don't show what the front page looked like at any point in time - they're a blended average of the frontpage stories from a particular day. At no point did the front page actually look like that, but that's because you can't get a 24 hour view from any particular snapshot.
Additions:
* /next (or /prev) link on comments jumps to the next (or previous) comment at the same nesting level
* /root links (on item pages) jump to the top-level GP comment (this may be renamed to /top in the future)
* /context on a comment (when not on the original /item page) links to the comment in its place on the original /item page
* HN's software auto-edits titles to make them less linkbaity, but if it gets the edit wrong, you can change it after you submit (per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38775366)
Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38779156 because that's another undocumented aspect. How to sum it up in a sentence? Maybe: "If you only use HN to submit your own stuff, the software will eventually start filtering your submissions." But then I need a second sentence: "It's fine to submit your own stuff, but it should be part of a diverse mix of unrelated/interesting things."
NB: One characteristic of "/context" is that where a comment has been flagged or killed, then the comment for which context has been requested isn't visible. The more so if "showdead" isn't enabled or when viewing from an unauthenticated session.
I run across this fairly frequently when checking on dang's comments, particularly when I'm not logged in, as moderator comments are often made following moderator actions or where members have downvoted or flagged a comment.
I'm not sure that a fix is needed, but the behaviour is slightly unexpected and confusing.
Assuming one has full vouch privileges, why do some flagged comments have vouch links but others can not. Perhaps one can check the source code to answer questions like this, or perhaps the code is constantly changing.
'vouch' links only show up on [dead] posts, and [dead] and [flagged] are not the same thing. A post can be both [flagged] and [dead], in which case there will be a 'vouch' link—but not when a post is [flagged] but not [dead].
This makes sense once you understand that [dead] means "not generally visible"*, and the purpose of 'vouch' is to restore a post to general visibility.
* that is, they're visible, but only to users who have 'showdead' turned on in their profile.
Is it correct to conclude that [vouch] links only appear on [flagged] submissions that are below the flag threshhold for [dead]. Maybe three flags or something.
Are the [vouch] rules the same for both submissions and replies, i.e., comments. I inadvertently used the term "flagged comments"; I was actually curious about flagged submissions.
For instance, as I type this there is a submission in /active that's [flagged] but not [dead], but there's no [vouch] link.
Thanks. For those wondering how someone may have missed this: Evidently I had not in fact accidentally done a "hide", so nothing was in my hidden list, and thus my profile page cleverly didn't have a "hidden" link at all.
Things expire off the hidden list over time as well, presumably based on when the link itself disappears, but such links will then show up on hn's historical view.
Yeah it's very easy to accidentally hide (or flag!) posts on my phone. Wish there was an option for a confirm screen. Every once in a while I check what I've accidentally flagged and unflag it. I'm sure I'm not the only one...
Very cool, thanks. How does one become aware of this class of magic? It seems completely undiscoverable, not being in the FAQ, nor in the present "List of Hacker News's undocumented features..."
I've lurked here and on other discussion/aggregation sites for years (I've apparently been here 10--oof) and only recent started commenting a little more. This whole time I didn't realize the top color could be set. I noticed it in my profile a couple days ago and thought it was an entirely new site feature.
Seeing all this info I was unaware of laid out in front of me makes me wish there was a docs page linked in the footer, like Tildes has.
Any hidden feature to get past shadow moderation? I know I am not entitled to anything and no one cares unless they are affected directly but it would be nice if "you're posting too fast" restrictions (could mean 3 or 4 times in one day) showed up before I spend like half an hour composing a reply to someone, not after. But alas, not owed anything, hn is a social engagement site for a VC at the end of the day. But the non-transparent moderation stuff speaks volumes about the culture and all.
Will try to post non-FUD, high quality comments and posts (read between the lines lol).
I hear you and am willing to meet you on this, but you simply can't post things to HN like "you are just an ageist tribal presumptive jerk" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38769241) without getting penalized and/or banned. I understand that the other person was being provocative, but a lot of this is about how we handle provocation—i.e. it's about learning to get hit by provocation (whether intentional or unintentional), absorbing the shock in oneself, and then not responding in kind.
You're just as welcome on HN as anyone else is, and if you build up a track record of using the site as intended for a while, we can definitely take a look and hopefully take the rate limit off your account.
@dang, the "jerk" part was over the line and I was in the wrong. However, my problem is not with the rules or in the restriction but with the fact that your restrictions where not transparent (shadow moderation) and you didn't think simply asking me to refrain would not work. In the past for example, you asked me to avoid brigading and I have avoided it since. You used a humorous comment I made (like I've seen others do once in a while) as an example of low quality comment so I avoid any sort of humor on HN now.
I will assume in cases such as what you quoted, you would treat the person I replied to with the same level of non-transparent hostility? If so I will avoid defending myself, else I will just avoid using "over the line" terms like "jerk" and use more tolerable terms like "unkind".
> and if you build up a track record of using the site as intended for a while
You tolerate political topics on HN. On such threads, it seems my problem is that I do not understand what you mean by that. My expectation is either you tell me or others flag my comment if it is inappropriate. I never attack someone's character and try to focus on technical analysis of things, what you quoted there was in response to someone attacking my character (will refrain).
I will read your rules again. Perhaps I should avoid sensitive topics entirely on HN but truth be told, I make them in anticipation of a healthy discourse (which if you note on that comment thread was had). This is the only site I know of where that is actually possible these days. But I'd hate to think simply sharing my views is causing such a burden.
> You're just as welcome on HN as anyone else is
I don't think that is true. But no worries, I undersrand your perspective well enough.
At least I now know that this isn't in my head, thanks for confirming. I sincerely hope you reconsider this approach and inform others (if they exist) of your disapproval or measures instead of shadow/secret approaches. You absolutley have the right to moderate content and tell people to stop any behavior, just like this.
I'll seriously consider stopping active participation as a 2024 resolution.
I always prefer to remove restrictions from accounts when people are using HN as intended, but when I looked at an account's recent history and see something like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38769241, it's clear that that would be premature.
> You used a humorous comment I made (like I've seen others do once in a while) as an example of low quality comment so I avoid any sort of humor on HN now.
Minor nit: I've posted about this before, but I wish folks would not refer to dang as a "moderator" or say stuff about "the HN moderators". If anything, I think it's more appropriate to refer to dang as the site admin.
The reason this is a pet peeve of mine is I often see people complaining about "the HN moderators" (e.g. "the HN mods are on a power trip and keep flagging my submissions!" or some such), where they are clearly taking this conceptual model from Reddit, and they seem to think there is a shadowy cabal of "mods" who control what gets downvoted/flagged (and, in fairness, this does and can happen in subreddits). In other words, when you see your submissions being flagged or comments being downvoted or flagged, 99.9% of the time it's not "the HN mods" who are downvoting you. It's just other, normal HN users (who have earned 501+ karma as TFA explains) who simply don't like what you have to say.
Not saying dang never blocks users/comments, but it's exceedingly rare and I've only seen it for the most obnoxiously egregious behavior after (usually multiple) warnings.
> Not saying dang never blocks users/comments, but it's exceedingly rare and I've only seen it for the most obnoxiously egregious behavior after (usually multiple) warnings.
Issuing warnings or reminding people of the guidelines (rules) is also part of being a moderator, so the moniker is perfectly cromulent to describe dang's role
I had never heard the word "cromulent" and so that led me to a Mirriam Webster article describing how The Simpsons made the word up for a joke and then from there "seeped into our lexical consciousness". Worth a read!
My issue isn't so much with the word, but it's that so often I see tons of users who are clearly bringing preconceived notions about how the moderator role works at Reddit and thinking it works the same here. At the very least there definitely aren't moderators, plural, on HN currently by that definition.
The other reason I think "admin" is a much better word is that it much more clearly indicates that this is a special, privileged role. That vast majority of "moderation" on HN is done by normal users with upvotes, downvotes and flagging (and also, of course, by automated systems e.g. with spam filters/bot detection).
But again, my primary point is that I see users blaming "the mods" for why their post is downvoted or hidden, when usually it's that people just don't want to acknowledge that the community, at large, didn't think they were contributing productively to the discourse of the site.
dang, or someone at HN, can and does silently modify the "weight" of a submission. That is why some articles stay on the front page longer, and some slip off the front page in a couple of hours.
This is far more control than reddit mods have. Reddit mods have one ability, an that is the ability to remove or not remove a submission, which is a very public action. HN can put its finger on the scales in a way that is much more subtle.
Very much so and it all happens with zero transparency, explanation or acknowledgement, very sus.
Your account can also be effectively shadowbanned with everything you submit going straight to the “dead” pile. Again no explanation and the only way you realize it is cause your submissions slowly die with no comments (and when you view the site in a non logged in fashion your submissions are not there)
I've seen at least one user recently which has all his comments as [dead] automatically and they are pretty normal comments. I did not write down the name but I've seen that only once.
This could be because they got caught in a spam filter, or because we banned them and the comments they've posted since then are better. In such cases we're always happy to take a look and unban the account if they're using HN as intended.
There are some weird edge cases, like sometimes a banned user, once they're unbanned, will revert to posting abusively. Then we ban them again and they revert to posting good comments again. Who can fathom the psyche of homo internetus.
It's also common for an account to post both fine comments and abusive comments. It's the latter that determine whether we have to ban the account—that's how rule enforcement works. But if a banned account posts something good, there's no reason why the good post needs to remain [dead]. This is what vouching is for: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cvouch.
Thanks, I didn't know about vouching. I guess there's indeed an history behind each ban of a real user. (Not talking about spam of course, it's a different thing)
Sometimes the history is “your account was pretty new so when you posted something a lot of people didn’t like we assumed you were a troll, banned, and never looked again”.
Assuming no violent (as in promoting) or particularly racist/sexist comments in their history, this hits some new accounts if they're using a VPN (some particular VPNs, I guess?). Sometimes they get caught up in the same filters used to block spammers/abusers from using HN. Or if their first (or one of their first) comments was a link without substantial text, that also gets people put into some kind of "spammer" category. You, or they if you tell them, can reach out through the email in the contact link at the bottom to get the ban addressed.
You've found an odd edge-case. baybal2 is banned intentionally, despite the fact that most of his posts are good, and some are great. Unfortunately, the remainder aren't. The compromise is that he's banned, but users like me vouch for many of his good posts to make them visible. Here's a post from Dan about him a couple years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29692791. And another from 4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21195898.
We do know to a reasonable degree because otherwise the ‘improperly’ banned would make a noticeable fuss. It’s not a common enough occurrence but maybe you have some in mind.
There are, I believe, multiple HN moderators; Dan is just the only vocal one. And among all the different sites on the Internet, there are multiple different moderation styles, of which Dan's is just one.
I don't believe that is correct anymore, and I think TFA is right:
> Hacker News currently has one full time moderator: Dan Gackle (dang), and formerly Scott Bell (sctb). Their comment replies provide a pseudo-log of Hacker News moderation.
I've never seen an anyone else besides dang comment that they are an HN admin in the past 5-ish years or so.
Speculation/intuition, but I figure it happens in ways specifically designed to evade the type of detection you're basing your claim on, akin to shadow banning, whereas on Reddit there's often more visible evidence like corpses of deleted comments.
You can see the [dead] comments if you go to your profile and enable "showdead". Most of them are very bad, but from time to time you can find a false positive and vouch it.
Yes, I keep that enabled. I guess I provided poor examples but what I'm saying is that it seems like on Reddit moderation activities are quite obvious (i.e., a giant chain of deleted comments tends to indicate moderation and elicit resentment) and here they're less obvious (there's an air of strong moderation but little to point at directly, which is great IMHO as it evades resentment).
1) I enjoy figuring out how HN works over time by noticing certain patterns. Still haven't figured out (please don't spoil) why I can't downvote certain comments in threads where I see both arrows on other comments. HN feels like games in the past - you're given some docs but over time you'd go "ooooh" about something undocumented. Good stuff.
2) voting system works well for just users but HN is infested with corporate voting manipulation. It seems that an entity monitoring eg. brand's name is able to use just a few 501+ karma accounts to bury, or a few more to strongly boost, any post
3) based on what I learned about posts' scores (more than a grain of salt - as I mentioned - I'm still figuring things out) it seems a little out of place that sometimes a few hours-old posts (not as old to qualify for the "second chance" thing) with barely any comments and points are positioned higher on the top page than younger posts with more activity (higher score and more comments). I've noticed it more than once with substack and my assumption is that HN may be boosting YC-backed products
It may not even be official corporate manipulation. HN is frequented by a lot of industry insiders, and if they see something that doesn't resonate with what they know to be true they'll downvote.
Exactly: there's a ton of people here who work at the big ad-tech companies, so of course they're going to downvote anything that promotes ad-blocking since that harms their own paycheck in a way.
Imagine a discussion forum for medical topics (science, research, etc.) where 1/3 the users work for companies that sell homeopathic "remedies", and how that would influence moderation there.
I don't think Dang is advancing YC interests - I think it's just bog-standard astroturfing. Especially with the low vote count of most stories, it's not hard to make your story pop or disappear.
I do put a lot of value on privacy, but I actually don't really find that problematic. I don't have the expectation to be able to just erase everything I wrote online, I assume it is public and persistent. So for things where I want to preserve private aspects I have to take that into account from the start.
There are certainly individual cases where some post might turn out to be problematic later, but that's more of an exception and can be handled by manual intervention.
I do find it annoying in some places how users can just erase their posts without a reason. Because they don't just erase their own content, they take the responses to it with them or at least make them less understandable. And those people responding did put some effort into it.
Actually, this is the motivation __to__ nuke. It's what I mean about the environment changing. HN is one of the big places that get scraped and everyone is scraping all data that they can these days. It's very reasonable to believe you can be de-anonymized much more easily and that it's only going to get easier. It's not unreasonable to think that someone can mimic my speech and this creates a new vulnerability. I am thinking much more about self-censorship now and being more measured now than I have in the past.
I do agree with you that self-censorship is a growing problem. But I'm not sure how to solve this when we're entering a world where it is the language you use that becomes a fingerprint. I appreciate the records because there is a lot of valuable information here but at the same time these records make us vulnerable in a way we haven't been before. And that it is in a way that not just worrying about nation states being able to do this but that we're posting these records to huggingface. The processing is just getting easier and that's about all that's needed now.
It is a hard problem to solve. Switching usernames doesn't fix the issue but could be more noise. Even disappearing messages is only noise, but stronger than the former. Probably pretty helpful because I don't think people are scraping every day but that could change.
Idk, if you have thoughts I'd love to head. I've been thinking of writing them down and posting to HN but unsure and it feels like one of those things that sounds conspiratorial until years later people will say "of course this was coming" lol
I do think people are scraping the site daily, if not hourly, and rate limiting is usually trivial to overcome. But I suspect the implementation is not standard.
Scraping doesn’t even have to be hourly, scraping a thread or account once then `diff`ing the two between weeks or months or years would easily reveal any interventions.
Which would actually expose users who you should retroactively investigate. Canaries.
I presume you are aware of “fuzzed” users. With unassociated comments, submissions, and possibly even changing names. I only recently discovered this myself after a little digging, but you may be able to do this and continue posting.
I’ve been hesitant to mention this anywhere, as discussing how you would red team a site you like publicly might not be the best for the site.
There are other clever possibilities, such as using some combination of artificial & organic content to wash users identities. Like banned or shadowbanned accounts mixed with real users. An acid bath if you will. If you dissolved 100 people into each other, who can really say who is who?
Yes, I agree that disappearing messages is not a strong action.
I don't think changing usernames is a strong action either. This is because the fingerprint is your language, not the name you're associated with. See the Enron dataset and the project in Ng's intro AI course, but we'd need to scale that quite a bit (which is very hard).
I'm not aware of the fuzzed users. But I think you should mention it in the open if they are problematic.
I have thought of AI to rewrite my language but that's difficult and only fuzzing too.
> this can drive self-censorship. Which is a growing problem at large.
I suppose it depends on one's perspective. We used to call self-censorship "decorum."
The nature of human beings didn't change when we went online, and sometimes it behooves a person to just read the room before speaking. Because of the karma system, the upvote downvote system, and the user curated flagging system, I would classify Hacker News as a "decorum-friendly" message board where a certain amount of pre-filtering is not only necessary but highly encouraged.
> Inclusivity […] Unfortunately. (Moderators occasionally unkill such threads if they see it in time, although it rarely sticks).
Why would this be described as “unfortunate”? For example tings like LLM:s being trained on flawed/biased data is a known real and unfortunate thing which can hurt already marginalised groups in society if used for eg. policy derisions.
I hope i can agree with you. But are you really sure? The period seems to indicate that the “unfortunate” belongs to the moderator action and not the flagging.
"[unfortunate statement]. Unfortunately." is idiomatic (if informal) English. "Unfortunately. [unfortunate statement]." is not, especially in this case where the second statement is parenthesized. If it was "Unfortunately:" or "Unfortunately," that would be different.
In my mind unfortunately can only ever refer to a previous sentence, not the next one. I read the period simply as a stylistic choice meant as a pause. They could have written it with a dash or a comma:
> [...] they tend to be flagged to death by users regardless — unfortunately.
> 1. Placement: “Unfortunately” is typically placed at the beginning of a sentence or clause to emphasize the regrettable aspect of the situation. It sets the tone for what follows and ensures clarity in your expression.
Sorry in advance if this is too much detail, but you seem to be interested in the nuance here.
"Unfortunately." here is a sentence fragment. It's idiomatic (conversational + informal) English to modify a preceding sentence with a sentence fragment. ("We could have some iced tea. Or lemonade.") There are cases where a sentence fragment can be used to introduce a sentence ("Delicious. I ate the whole thing.") but this is never an adverb (you can say "Unbelievable. You've done it again" but not "Unbelievably. You've done it again").
If one were trying to write "Unfortunately, there has been an error" with a long pause, you would write "Unfortunately... there has been an error", never "Unfortunately. There has been an error." The latter looks like a typo.
That's why (as a native speaker/reader of American English) I don't see any possibility of interpreting the text the way you're describing. Hope that helps!
That’s my point, I think. It seems to me that moderators are doing the right thing by HN rules and context by tagging such discussions are not off-topic. Why is it described as “unfortunate” then?
I think you're reading it as "Unfortunately, moderators occasionally unkill such threads..." when it's meant as "...they tend to be flagged to death by users regardless, unfortunately".
True. But the following phrase is set off by both a period and a set of parentheses. I think it’s pretty clear the author’s intent is for there to be a complete sentence about the behavior of HN users and then a complete thought saying that was unfortunate. (Then a parenthetical about the moderator behavior.)
Seems to be missing comment vote manipulation. Users can see the number of votes their own comments get but can't see the number of votes other comments get, or even if their vote changes the vote count on a comment, which allows shadowbanning of unwanted comments by vote count alteration by mods/admins.
That only covers downvoting comments, it doesn't mention why comment vote counts aren't publicly visible. Keeping comment vote counts invisible makes sense if upvotes on some comments are not being recorded as a form of shadowbanning those comments/users.
Other people's vote counts are invisible because they led to constant bickering about the merits of any given comment's "spot" vote count (this is also the reason there's a guideline that asks you not to write these kinds of comments, but changing the affordances so you can't see them at all was a much more effective solution to the problem).
The conspiracist rationale here doesn't make much sense, because the site operators also control the displayed comment count and the registration of votes.