Doesn't that apply to the submission about Atwood, though? It seems to me the "political flamebait" rule is applied rather selectively on HN.
To see why it's a hard question, look at the two extremes of the solution space. One would be to ban every topic that you find politically provocative—i.e. that anybody finds politically provocative, since there's no reason to privilege one user over others. That would exclude most stories that get posted here—certainly everything about economics, history, philosophy, literature, city planning, etc., but also most stories about business and industry. Even many stories that appear purely technical would have to go. Probably everything would, once people got done being provoked by what remained. As some are fond of pointing out, everything is political when you get down to it.
The other extreme would be to allow every political topic and all escalations and flamewars. That would turn this place into scorched earth and kill it as a site for intellectual curiosity, its mandate (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Since both extremes are impossible for HN, we need to draw a line somewhere. Where should it be? If we're optimizing for intellectual curiosity, we have to cast a wide net, because curiosity likes to meander. Any topic that supports intellectual curiosity is ok, even if it has political overlap. The topics that aren't ok are the ones that are (a) purely political, (b) purely sensational, (c) have usually turned into flamewars in the past.
What about stories that don't gratify your curiosity? Well, that's always the case, in the sense that no one likes every story and no story is liked by everyone. It suffices to gratify curiosity for some segment of the audience. If you run into one that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of others to read. If you run out, the 'past' link in the top bar is guaranteed to find popular threads that you missed. And if a submission really breaks the site guidelines, you can flag it. What's not ok is to start posting comments in the thread from a place of provocation rather than curiosity. That's not in the spirit of HN and the guidelines ask you not to.
All these concepts require interpretation, so any line we draw is fuzzy. Other moderators might make different calls. But the OP is obviously on topic by that standard, and while I understand how it can appear that we apply the rules selectively, I'd caution against leaping to a belief in moderation bias motivated by secret political preferences (inevitably opposed to your own of course! See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... (later edit: and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870)). All political sides get moderated and/or not moderated at times. When it comes to politics, the mods do something for everyone to dislike—which unfortunately distorts how people perceive moderation (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
If you see a case that violates this standard, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to seeing everything on HN. The second-likeliest explanation is that we thought it over and came up with some reason that is based on the site guidelines. Sometimes that leads to counterintuitive places. People are always welcome to ask.
If that's not enough, there are plenty of prior explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... Take a look, and if there's still something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is.
Obviously, I disagree with many things about the approach HN has taken, but of course it is your site, you can do as you want.
For starters, if you say people can just skip things that don't satisfy their curiosity, I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to political controversies. I can understand if you want to moderate the "root articles" (the once that are listed on the homepage), but why do you care about the comments? If people discuss something, obviously it interests them (strikes their curiosity). What does it matter if they make a 10000 comment thread about it? I think you have some sort of algorithmic counter measures against long threads, which does nothing but enrage (presumably based on some heuristic PG once made, when he felt long comment threads signal flame wars)
Ultimately it seems to me all about the people you attract here to vote on things. I've just tried to read that article about Atwood, and it is entirely too long-winded for me. If HN had been founded by some famous literary professor, you would probably get only submissions like that, and nothing about technology or science. But it was founded by PG and now it is associated with YCombinator, so it draws a different crowd.
Just saying I don't think the "curiosity" rule is really what makes HN, it is the people you manage to attract.
And to that I personally can say, I wouldn't mind some other user ripping into me in comments for some political or other reasons. I do mind HN itself telling me I am not wanted here , which it does in so many ways.
Of course, again, that is your right to do, as it is your site. It just makes me sad (unsurprisingly), having been on HN since the early days. And ultimately it does seem to boil down to political opinions, even if you don't consciously target certain opinions above others, as you claim.
Since the value of HN is its community, we have to regulate the comments carefully. The main tool for doing that is https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Not to do so would cause HN to suffer the default fate of internet communities, which tend eventually to become burnt-out husks of their former selves. The idea here is to stave that off for as long as we can: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
That's why we keep asking you to follow the site guidelines. It's not just because your individual comments get better when you do that. It's also because the feedback loops involved (the effects of comment quality on the community) are large and existential for HN.
Yes, I disagree with her. Not because of her old age, but because she seriously claimed the scenario of Handmaid's Tale was near. There were people demonstrating in Handmaid's Tale costumes, and she was cheering them on.
If anything, THAT is "political flamebait" - claiming we are entering Handmaid's Tale territory. It was and is ridiculous (unless you believe fundamentalist Islam will take over eventually, which for PC reasons I assume we don't), and that is why I don't hold much stock in her writings anymore. Not because of her old age.
And the article is applauding her for "political flamebait", so by extension, it pretty much also is "political flamebait".
That's my opinion anyway. But I'm sure it will be considered "political flamebait" by HN.
It's important that moderation based on "political flamebait" not simply reduce to the political preferences of the moderators. We work consciously at that, and have years of practice. I don't think there's any political position that we haven't moderated (and even banned) users for expressing in ways that break the site guidelines.
One dynamic that affects this is that when people are disagreeing with the majority, they often feel defensive, which causes them to lash out more in ways that break the site rules more. Then we moderate them for that, which makes them sure that they're being moderated because of their views, which makes them more defensive and lash out even more. This is a tricky one. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
"I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age" is about half your comment.
In any case, why shouldn't her actions be relevant? To me, it changed my opinion about her. Why wouldn't it be relevant for others, too?
And what do you mean by "it is not even clear"? That is your criticism, that you flat out don't believe me? Then just say so right away, and don't make up phony reasons to dismiss my tweet.
I don't care enough about you to google for her specific statements, though. If you don't believe me, fine, whatever.
And my comment is "poopy"? I mentioned a specific reason why I don't hold her in high regard anymore. Yeah, she is a woman and she is old, but I am still allowed to not revere her. I know that is hard for liberals to grasp.
I'm still flabbergasted that she and others seriously proclaimed Trump's election would bring about the scenario of the handmaids tale. I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age, but I've lost all interest in her work.
(downvotes incoming in 3...2...1....)
On its face, the intent of this seems inflammatory and you got the votes, flags and moderator talking-to for your efforts. This is definitely unpleasant - nobody likes being berated in public and I sympathize. As psychologist Don Vincenzo Coccotti puts it:
That smarts, doesn't it? [...] Fucks you all up. You get that pain shootin' through your brain, your eyes fill up with water. That ain't any kind of fun
In my personal experience, the effect does not last days but I'm no psychologist. Perhaps it's an explanation for the long sequence of curious defenses you've offered. Briefly summarized, they include:
- The comment isn't flamebait, the real flamebait is the article itself.
- The comment is not dismissive.
- The comment does not mention her age.
- The comment does mention her age but calling her viewpoint ridiculous while suggesting it may be a result of age-related cognitive decline is practically a compliment.
- The comment has nothing to do with Trump or her age.
- The comment is not an inaccurate caricature of her views but your interlocutors are not worthy of being shown the error of their interpretation.
- It is wrong to call the comment poopy.
Here I want to point out I didn't call the comment poopy, I called its form poopy. Whatever you meant by it, it's expressed in ways the HN guidelines strongly disapprove of. You'd be right to object that calling the form of a comment poopy is also contrary to the guidelines. I appologize and want to assure you it was intended strictly in the Pickwickian sense - a lapse into familiarity I hope you can understand and forgive in light of our long conversation.
I'll also admit I have some trouble believing that someone whose previous commentary here includes a suggestion Wikipedia is controlled by feminists and 'SJW's once held Atwood and her work in high regard but recently changed their mind. I'm prepared to accept this is unreasonable bias on my end.
Lastly, I agree with you that if liberals are, as you suggest, responsible for your comment, they deserve our opprobrium and contempt.