Sorry to post this again, but it got moderated down a couple of weeks ago.
We've had a good group of users since last time this was posted, and there've been some really interesting discussions on there. Come and join us!
We've had a good group of users since last time this was posted, and there've been some really interesting discussions on there. Come and join us!
Not completely sure what you mean by this, but if you’re saying HN moderators “moderated down” your submissions — no one was moderating them down, they simply didn’t have enough votes to stay on the front page.
Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html asks you to not use HN exclusively for promoting your products.
Edit: for clarity, I believe everyone, including the racists, should have freedom of speech. Though, forcing companies to host that speech is not freedom of speech. And the speech that is supposed to be protected, dissenting views, seems as protected as it's ever been. Freedom of speech is not there to protect objectively harmful hate and conspiracies that intend to manipulate the vulnerable.
Education is lacking, democracy is suffering because of it.
Anything else you interpreted is based on your own biases.
We can only re-balance the power of manipulation through developing technology that values identity and transparency over fraud and misconduct (or social acceptance aka likes).
Currently, the economics behind misinformation are only feasible for a handful of institutions; and that unbalanced the power of acquiring knowledge online.
The Web has failed us as a technology, in the sense that its intention liberated knowledge to the people at first but then gradually pushed control over its discoverability and "trustworthyness" away from the people.
I don’t see how we can keep up the facade of a united nation where more or less two factions bubble up that are clearly opposed along irredeemable lines (personally I believe there are more than two factions but they tend to bubble up and ally into just two in a way that makes differentiation basically meaningless)
However, my comment should have read "bad for the outcomes of a democracy."
And I'd always thought that undesirables were a relatively smallish percentage of the population. As long as they are, we don't actually have to decide who's undesirable. They get outvoted. It's pretty clever.
Until the point where mean, angry, stupid people become a majority -- or worse, a near-majority with ancient thumbs on the scale favoring them. Then we've got a lot of very uncomfortable decisions to make.
I've honestly never understood the appeal of a completely unmoderated space. I'd prefer a site that was moderated fairly and competently so I didn't have to wade through extremist dross looking for content.
Unmoderated sounds good on the surface only. If dang and the other mods weren't present, I'm sure none of us would be here either.