Sam Altman responds to his sister's claim of sexual abuse
twitter.com
twitter.com
Who knows. You just can never trust anything when a lot of money or ulterior motives are involved.
We were not there so we dont know what happened. It is possible to look for motives behind the need to lie. Money motivates a lot of people. I saw pictures of them all. Taken recently. They do not portray the kind of response from someone who experienced all of this. I also do not believe anyone who years later, when motives change, suddenly remember things that they can use the way it is being used. While repressed memories are real, I do not believe they work the way it is being portrayed here. This is just my, probably unpopular, opinion.
I also don’t understand why someone would defend him. He has the resources to defend himself, he doesn’t need a white knight.
to make such an outrageous claim you should follow it up with more than one example dealing with college kids… bill cosby, weinstein, dany masterson… vast majority of high profile abuse allegations turn out true, not false…
100% not saying anything about this case as we are currently in he-said-she-said part of it but you claim needs more substance
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman...
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38311509
For the record, I believe in everything Annie says here.
To dang: Why is this flagged?
It's common for sensational and/or outrageous stories to make the frontpage because those qualities attract upvotes. They also, however, attract flags. The latter take longer to kick in because many flags come from users who only see the story once it has made the frontpage.
This tug-of-war between upvotes and flags is the core of HN's frontpage is determined. There are additional factors, such as moderation downweights (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), but we haven't applied those in this case.
In other words, all you're seeing here is very much a community verdict according to the standard rules by which HN operates. Sometimes people make grandiose claims about sinister censorship beyond that; but they're doing that because of their own priors, which for whatever reason cause them to misinterpret what they're seeing.
None of this is secret, in the sense that people are always welcome to ask what's going on and we're happy to answer. Of course, you have to trust us enough to believe the answer, but that'll always be the case no matter what we do.
That's not true, and I don't know what you mean by "superusers".
Is that the ranking algorithm? It felt suspicious that these headlines were getting substantial early HN user attention (double digits) but not showing up on the home page.
I know HN isn't a gossip rag, and that we don't tar and feather people, but the story did feel notable.
All of the submissions on this topic are being flagged off the frontpage by users, not moderators.
At the time I came across these threads, none of these submissions were "[flagged]" (or at least not indicated as such in the UI). They had 10-30ish upvotes, all were under an hour old, and yet they were buried on the first and second pages of "new".
Do articles that are flagged once or twice get internally penalized and de-ranked but not shown as "[flagged]" yet in the UI until they accumulate more flagging?
"Once or twice" isn't quite accurate but otherwise, yes, that's how it works.