[flagged]
I am often not correct in recognizing even my own cognitive biases. So, of course, I do not know what you think. To answer your question otherwise, would be pretentious.
But I am certain, that I feel the unfair bias and censorship against the conservative points of view. In both: what stories are allowed to be posted, and how the comments are moderated.
I am also certain, that would feel much happier with the quality of discussion -- if divisive topics with just a passing relation to modern technology and without substantial evidence based analysis -- would be left to other forums.
Again, thank you for your reply (I did not expect it, I only expected to be flagged again). And thank you for personal time and effort to moderate HN.
Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.
The bug reports come with cartoons showing you secretly engineering the bugs owing to your thoughts and feelings against the bug reporters. Opposing reports have similar cartoons, with heroes and villains rotated, but there you are too, secretly engineering bugs. The cartoons don't match anything you remember thinking or feeling, but the bug reporters know better, publish daily, and accost passers-by with tales of how callously you oppress them for their bug-reporting service. The bug reporters tell similar stories about each other, too, and file bug reports about each other when they're not filing them about you. What should we do now? :)
I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning.
A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views.
Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.
At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000.
This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.
So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning.
If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.
Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor? Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm not saying it follows that things aren't biased—that would be a non sequitur. But I am saying that people's perceptions on this are unreliable across the political spectrum, and for the same reason: it's humans looking at it, and we all have the same wiring. Whatever that wiring is, it cuts much deeper than left vs. right divisions, because the behaviors are identical across that divide.
> Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor?
Generally, yes, of course.
> Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.
I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by that, but I'd like to point out a way to interpret it: If HN is left-leaning, and left-leaning people do not think HN is biased, then only right-leaning people would think HN is biased, and one could predict political orientation based on whether a person thinks HN is biased.
In other words, if left-leaning people think their position is neutral (e.g. because they're irreligious, and they think that religion is biased and that secularism is unbiased), and HN is left-leaning, then left-leaning people would think HN is unbiased, and right-leaning people would think it is biased.
Now I'm guessing you meant that both left- and right-leaning people think HN is biased against their political orientation.
But I challenge you (not that you haven't done this, but still) to look at submissions on polarizing issues (e.g. global warming, sexism, racism), look at the comments that are downvoted and flagged, and look at which viewpoints those comments espouse. Modulo comments that are flagged or downvoted for obvious guidelines violations, my claim is that the vast majority are ones that are right-leaning. I don't think confirmation bias is causing me to think this--I think it's a fair observation.
And if that observation is correct, then I think it's fair to conclude that HN is biased to the left.
1) ideological (including political (globa/local), or religious
2) technical
3) personal (meaning focus is, specifically, on subjective position)
4) moral (meaning, focus is on subjective, but relatable at a group/society/era level)
Problem is with ( 1 ), and may be ( 4 ).
My personal view, is that if HN is to allow new submissions where (1) and (4) are present. Those submissions should go through a different flow, than (2) and (3).
These submissions should be marked as such, then reviewed by a moderator, to see if it fits the broader category of HN-allowed submissions.
And then, if the submission passes moderation, the discussion on those posts cannot follow same upvote/downvote model as ( 2 ) or (3). Because regular upvote/downvote model puts at disadvantage minority view.
-- --
WRT your question > Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor
Yes, I think selection of submissions, downvotes and flags favors disproportionally to anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-male rhetoric.
I particular share a view of environment issues, though I favor non-global, trade-based solutions. So I, personally do remember incidents where my submissions or comments were downvoted on that topic.
Interestingly, on more political conservative forums, that I participate on -- when I argue a pro-environment position -- I get some pushback, sometime ridicule -- but my comments never 'grayed out' or flagged.
-- Sorry for a long, response. But yes. I favor particular ideology and moral stance. Everybody has those positions.
I also appreciate, particularly, flexibility of mind and personal ability to adjust to something different if circumstances or new information dictates that.
I have yet to find any discussion that would cause me a shift in my positions on (1) or (4). I suspect this is same with other people, but being tested by questions, or telling others what I think -- is engaging, nevertheless.
Another thing, I noticed, that I tend to use 'reciprocal' tone. So the actual tone would depend on some selection/aggregation of other folks tone.
My overall complaint, if I may call it that, is flagging/graying out expressions that are conservative-leaning.