Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

Deleting those comments doesn't help the comment poster (or others) know why Technique B is dangerous, or inoculate them from hearing about Technique B later and using it without knowing the danger.

We shouldn't pretend poisons don't exist, we should label them with warnings.

View on HN

>We shouldn't pretend poisons don't exist, we should label them with warnings.

We also shouldn't put them in the fridge next to the bottle of coke no matter how well labeled.

I think most users know what a comments section is.

I think you have an overly generous view of most people!

most people couldn’t name a web browser

My mom is a web browser. she browses all the time. Uses something call Windows to do it.

> We also shouldn't put them in the fridge next to the bottle of coke no matter how well labeled.

That's a great analogy, Perhaps to extend it -- there could be a "discards" section where the comment gets moved to should it be warranted, along with a note on why.

While nice in theory, people can generate low effort BS comments far faster than one can properly refute them.

Yeah, it was on off-the-cuff thought. It still might be worth exploring. I think it's safe to say that there's still room for improvements in the moderation domain.

Okay, but if we're not able to label every single one (because we don't have the time/resources/ability to do so), we should probably still remove them, no?

Better removed than unlabeled, as nice as a label might be.

Didn't slashdot solve this like 20 years ago? Have moderation keys (+1 insightful, -1 redundant but maybe retooled to your audience/domain) and let the users moderate and have 2nd (even more trusted users) and 3rd level moderation (site owner) to moderate those moderations.

It's like bureaucracy for moderation.

They should not show up before the warning, and not at all in a recommendation thread.

There should be a specific thread about poison

Reply on news.ycombinator.com