Why those articles are immediately flagged? It is tech related.
In fact, if they didn't, then HN's front page would consist of little else.
There is information in the FAQ about how to flag a post and who gets to do it, but it's unclear, at least to me, if another user with a similar karma level is able to unflag it.
I agree that a user may find the title inflammatory because it's an opinionated accusation without an explicit court decision backing it up, but I want to emphasize that official HN moderators should not be able flag this specific post as Coinbase is a YC company and happens to be one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, hence the conflict of interest in burying this story. I can't see any way how someone could contest the fact that this story presents a conflict of interest for YC.
(Not in the financial sense.)
Perhaps you think the this-time-is-differentness of this time is different enough to justify it, but (a) none of us can actually know that in advance, (b) the impact of getting it wrong is existential (if one can use that word about a relatively trivial thing like an internet forum), (c) people have often said such things in the past and it's clear that we were right not to pull the plug when they did, and (d) my job hasn't changed.
If you want further explanation, the links in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43272671 should take you to plenty. If you read some of that and then have a question I haven't answered yet, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
- What is an HN in the world in which we seem to be headed?
- What is the possibility, however slim, that HN might serve as a bulwark against that world? Is that a die worth throwing?
- What is HN's, and YC's, culpability in creating that world? I'm looking at social media, crypto, AI, AdTech, FinTech, Thiel, Musk, Andreesen, and who knows who else here, as well as general enshittification and authoritarianisation of the Internet (surveillance, propaganda, disinformation, censorship, targeted manipulation,[1] kompromat, the intertwingled and self-reinforcing surveillance capitalism/state/anarchism, killbots, etc.).
- What if any sufficient difference would change your mind? Do you, dang, have any personal moral limits at which you'd change your moderator stance, or simply wash your hands and walk away? Or not?
I borrowed Anubis's scales, and it seems to me HN compares poorly to the feather of the liberal social democratic experiment.
Turning HN into a Nazi bar[2] is also an irreversible outcome. As is turning the polity in which it resides into a fascist state.
Scylla, Charybdis. How steer you helmsman?
________________________________
Notes:
1. See: <https://archive.is/8ceqI>
2. A question I've pondered for a while. Toy poll suggests at the least a perception issue: <https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/112922175293010508>.
In the world we're headed into, truth is gone. Making an honest judgment based on your best evaluation of the evidence available to you is gone. You will parrot the current insanity that some authoritarian demands, or suffer the consequences. In that world, we really need HN, to keep our sanity, and to avoid the complete destruction of our moral character.
And if you really think that's the world we're headed to, do you think converting HN into all-anti-Trump-all-the-time is really going to be the difference between ending up there and not ending up there?
Though for the most part, the short answer is that HN would be either irrelevant, irredeemably corrupted itself, and/or a tool for the abusive power of that world.
Which is to say that fighting against that outcome is paramount.
The evil that is to be fought is far more than just one person. But by fighting that orientation (it's not an ideology, it's simple power-lust) is essential.
HN has had its critics going back to its origins. I'm tending to think jwz was right.
I've heard from others who were themselves prominent on HN that they're finding the site no longer tolerable, and I ask myself whether or not it is at least weekly, if not more often. And as much as I've admired much of what dang does here, there's some which makes my hair stand up. Including what he has, and has not, said in this thread.
(This is only a partial answer, and I hope to give it more consideration and justice soon.)
To clarify an example of what I mean:
For example, if the maximum flag ratio: is 0.5, and if an article has 10 flags / 19 upvotes, then the ratio of 10/19 is > 0.5 and the flag gets triggered.
Or maybe it's just a flat number, such that any article with >20 flags is flagged.
I'm sure it's more complicated than either example, but was just curious if you could share the approximate way the 'flagged' note is added to articles?
As you say, it's more complicated than a simple ratio, but I guess you could call it ratio-like :)
"bongodongobob, why is the president's decentralized technology defrauding American citizens?"
"Dunno, haven't you ever wondered why FastDOOM is fast though?"