I've experienced a similar commenting system to RadioPaper in use on the Gawker properties, and it's not bad. It is siloed. But just because there's a single silo at HN doesn't mean everybody sticks around in that silo.
You mean exclusion of moderate to right leaning opinions right? That's my experience. If not (or even if so), I've seen lots of discussion on HN where everyone thinks their pet viewpoint is getting unduly picked on. That's probably as good a sign of neutrality as one can find (not that I think HN reader moderation is neutral)
Edit: maybe I'm misunderstanding the replies but my point is that many people seems to feel like the overall forum sentiment is against them. I'm not saying HN has a demonstrable left-wing bias. People seem to be trying to refute that for some reason
There are apolitical reasons for this theory. I'm not conservative and found it to be in the realm of plausibility. For what it's worth, I've entertained it before it made headlines.
I feel like these are probably on two different levels, but given that you called it a theory and not a conspiracy, I think you'll also probably disagree.
You seem to imply it is some crazy far right conspiracy, but that wasn't the impression I got from skimming the Wikipedia article [2]. There's a good few serious people who consider it possible and while I'm sure some distorted version of it is weaponized by politicians, I don't see why that's reason to discard it.
[1] (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29901824)
[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory)
Edit: I posted the wrong vanityfair link, fixed. Also regarding my terminology, "conspiracy" is a bit of a loaded term, and given the information in the vanityfair article I decided to keep my terminology more neutral
[1]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...
Do you feel that an intelligent, principled person cannot make a valid argument opposing you and your wife for any of these phenomena?
Having that debate drives away women. I don't know if that's the kind of "right-leaning opinion" you're talking about, but if it is, I would rather that we were divided into two silos: one silo where people talk about how women are not ambitious, and one silo with women.
Like, say one day that a very well researched finding comes out and proves that men are predisposed to be more violent, in reference to higher incarceration rates. Should it change how you treat other people, once it has been reasonably proven as fact? I think not.
The choice that someone makes to discriminate against a group based on statistical realities does not depend in the slightest on whether those facts are true. People easily pretend they are true if they are not, and if they are true it doesn't justify discrimination in the end either way!
Unfortunately these arguments seem to often end up just being in service of a goal like justifying discrimination, and when they aren't, certain others will show up to accuse the person of that even if not true. Sigh.
I wonder, are there predominantly female areas of society where members often worry about how their rules drive away men? Are nurses afraid to talk about men's propensity to not be caring in case it scares them off?
(I'm also a little bemused at your implication of what an 'uncomfortable idea' is, as well as the implication that hackernews is the right place for this, as well as the assertion that you can fragment social networks to satisfy people while ignoring the effects of critical mass - but there's too much to unpack)
Your second paragraph is irrelevant in this thread (which discusses HN specifically).
Edit: A forum that bans discussions like that, will probably be seen as left-leaning by some.
As for network effects, small forums still exist and serve people fine. You don't actually have to be on Twitter or HN to interact with people that you prefer.
I would like it very much if Radiopaper's approach, or some variant of it, made it possible to actually have a more enriching exploration of ideas.
it's not neutral, but it doesn't lean "left" or "right" per se. What I see is a preference for well-argued or immediately-obvious points, often with citations, that engage fully with whatever they are a response to. Dismissals, emotive arguments, citation-free when making bold claims ... these do not fare well.
Strictly speaking though, I think pro-science or anti-science is independent of left vs right.
Edit: I think I've only used the downvote feature twice on HN, and in both times it was for promotion of a ridiculous Trump-related conspiracy theory. Consider me left-wing biased, which I certainly am these days.
This is an absurd characterization that is only used by people who don't understand the difference between science and religion and think that calling someone "anti-science" is a way to avoid debate about their religious views. It's as embarrassing as it is offensive.
The dichotomy of "pro-science" and "anti-science" elevates science to an almost religious stature. Science is fallible, it's very hard to do and just as hard to interpret. It's also not the right tool for a lot of issues.
Increasingly people have been adopting being pro-science as a part of their identity as if science held some ultimate, unquestionable truth. To me it is akin to faith, it's an appeal to a higher authority that is used to shut down debate and paint some opinions as moral and others as immoral.
I suppose pro- or anti-religion isn't completely orthogonal to left vs right politics. Support for a dominant religion is more likely to be found on the right, as a means of social control.
A forum could be seen as left-leaning simply by having a policy that all contributors are equal and should be treated with respect. Desire for equality (of wealth and power) is pretty much the defining left-wing characteristic.
One thing i fail to understand about this viewpoint is why the relationship between the removal of replies and comments and "low-grade harassment and de facto exclusion" isn't more prominent. Someone might say something one doesn't like, but the one has very little real power over the someone just with a reply.
But if they have the power to delete what they say, it's much easier to reach the level of harassment and exclusion. There isn't a much stronger tool for harassment and exclusion than moderation tools used improperly.
I'm quite certain that I have done so on this very thread. I'm seeking an environment (a private forum) where certain lines of debate are less ubiquitous (because I believe those lines of debate drive away people I would like to engage with). Some people are surely interpreting that as exclusionary and discriminatory, and perhaps some see it as low-grade-harassment trying to get them to leave.
There's a important distinction to be made between immutable characteristics and identity tied to ideas, but that doesn't mean that they aren't experiencing those feelings.
> There isn't a much stronger tool for harassment and exclusion than moderation tools used improperly.
A forum's promise of open exploration of ideas is worthless for those people who have left.
What I like about the RadioPaper approach is that it enhances freedom of association. Perhaps in practice that may actually lead to a more enriching exchange of ideas than a "free-speech" shouting contest.
(I still think that the comment-approval mechanism is best used to audition new contributors for unlimited participation, though.)
Would you care to elaborate? I am genuinely interested, in part because of curiosity and also because I haven’t experienced this personally.
Everyone feels like they are targeted and disenfranchised, as a side effect of the nature of social media.
All my left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of screenshots and evidence ...
All my alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda and they ALSO have plenty of screenshots and evidence of times when...I do not believe or claim that dang is personally biased against "my side". I think he tries incredibly hard and is rigorously driven to avoid bias because of the grand social experiment he's shepherding. It's our privilege to participate in that experiment.
What I claim is that the policy of "assume good faith" has an inevitable, unavoidable side effect of driving away outgroups. On reflection it wouldn't be just left-affiliated outgroups either — the mechanism is that leniency in moderation means that low-grade hostility is tolerated — BUT that hostility could be directed against the outgroups of any forum, and who the outgroups are is variable and forum-specific.
You can see that the people that control moderation on most social networks are political left, and aren't shy about discussing it. You can see that the political support from the social media workers leans to the left (I think over 99% of all political donations from twitter goes to the left). You see that these people routinely proclaim support for leftist political causes in their personal social media. Do you think there's a chance this influences their decisions?
Now, we've been told a lot about implicit biases and how people that think they are even handed may be still prejudiced even if they don't realize it, and need to take deliberate actions to ensure this bias does not influence their work. Do you think this also relates to people controlling social media, or they are unique caste of saints untainted by biases the rest of humanity suffers from? Or, more likely, they don't think they need to any take such actions, because they live in 99% agreement bubble? Do you think the existence of 99% agreement bubbles hinders their ability to evaluate their biases and enact measures to reduce their impact on their work?
https://melissamcewen.medium.com/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-...
That author advocates that HN stay how it is — or rather, she advocates changing it from within. But I don't think it's possible — I believe that the "assume good faith" proposition leads to toleration of unlimited low-grade hostility that does not rise above the threshold of flagging. The result is that outgroups flee the platform. Have you not noticed the gender imbalance around here?
From what I can see it's pick your poison:
* "Assume good faith" — outgroups don't participate. Exclusion may not be the intent, but it is the de facto result.
* Siloed: outgroups can and will meaningfully participate, but debate is more constrained.
> I think it looks more like people interested in gender and identity based activism leave, and people interested in signal-to-noise ratio stay.
That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues and male identity based activism, in addition to those discussing women, transgender, and universal gender issues.
> This is easily discovered by looking through the profiles of the top 100 posters and following the breadcrumbs.
Why would I want to do that? I mean, unless I am specifically interested either in gender activism (I am not), or in dating a top-100 HN poster (I am happily married) - why would I bother to research what kind of bits each of top-100 HN posters carry between their legs?
> That's not true, as there are plenty of people discussing male-focused gender issues
I would like to see some data supporting the assumption that male-focused gender issues and male-focused activism are discussed significantly more frequently on HN than female-focused gender issues and female-focused activism. This does not match my anecdotal impression - but of course I could be wrong. Could I see the source of your claims?
I only mention it to support the assertion that the gender imbalance exists. You wouldn't do it ordinarily.
> I would like to see some data supporting the assumption that male-focused gender issues and male-focused activism are discussed significantly more frequently on HN than female-focused gender issues and female-focused activism.
I didn't make such an assertion, as I was only rebutting the idea that "people interested in gender and identity based activism leave" per se. There are plenty of such discussions — a 700-comment thread on limb lengthening surgery just went by within the last day. The thread is filled with testimonials as to the discrimination faced by short men and the harms caused, including stories of heinous, callous bigotry.
(To which I say: yes let's please work together to be better to each other. Let's start from the assumption that it is human nature to be prejudiced and we all need to work to overcome our biases, rather than dividing ourselves into "x-ist"/"not-x-ist".)
I actually suspect that there may in fact be more male-focused gender identity discussion on HN than female-focused, but I haven't done the research. The misperception about that arises because men may not classify their own identity discussions as identity discussions.
The disagreement may be unsurprising, but I'd rather be persuasive. I'm not chasing "heretic" cred.
Gawker staff used to participate in the comments, but those days are long gone. That means that a top-level comment by anybody who isn't already pre-approved will almost certainly remain in the greys.
I miss the way it was, but the Gawker properties have gone through multiple wringers.
So I agree that the Gawker properties have serious problems, but I think that the commenting mechanism actually yields some pretty great results. It would be fab if Radiopaper could iterate and improve on that model!
Stupid people consider comments that disagree with anything they say “low-grade harassment”. This is visible all of the time when you look at people repeating falsehoods even about mundane things (not even hot button political issues). They become defensive about “being called out”.
We absolutely should not be encouraging any “conversation” systems that let people just hide any comment that they don’t pre-approve.