Hacker News Reader

Comment by SpicyLemonZest | Hacker News Reader

I'm skeptical of this kind of analysis without concrete examples of the kind of content that wasn't removed. Even if you trust the researchers (I personally am not familiar with them), there are legitimate reasons why they might not categorize things the same way as social media platforms.

e: Turns out that the researchers' full report actually does contain concrete examples, which seem to be legitimately bad and take-down-able.

View on HN

I've reported this page countless times that purports to be about 'jewish contributions to society' but is clear as day dog whistling.

https://www.instagram.com/jewish.contributions/?hl=en

Thanks for sharing this. Read the first two posts and I was like "oh that's a cool page". Then I kept going and realized what was going on

It's very well-made, which makes it even more scary.

> but is clear as day dog whistling.

I think it is dog whistling, but if you aren't familiar with anti-Semitic arguments and angles of attack, I don't think it is clear at all, which is probably the point.

On the surface it just seems like a list of facts and some are even seemingly laudatory, such as helping to end apartheid. The bad stuff is subtle or lower down the page.

If I were a moderator and just doing a quick check, I probably wouldn't spot anything wrong with the page.

Yea I agree... the winky face emojis and comment sections tell you the audience knows exactly what they're looking at though.

The problem is, even if you could develop a moderation system which can give individual reports this level of consideration, I don't think there's anyway to remove this kind of content without also removing a ton of legitimate discussions that happen to be used as dogwhistles in some specific subculture.

Did you read the report? They did give many concrete examples.

I had not. Thanks for the tip - the article didn't mention it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com