Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by leotravis10 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

leotravis10

Here's the report from 2023 that eventually triggered the lawsuit:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman...

Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38311509

I believe everything Annie says here.

View on HN

Do you seriously believe that Sam organised her shadowbanning on all platforms except Pornhub and OnlyFans?

Yes, he has that kind of pull. Look at how both the HN articles got flagged. Tons of people here defending him for some reason. OpenAI is a YC company after all.

Yes I do as Sam does have the influence and power to do such things. There's a major reason why pieces and articles like this one gets censored a whole lot.

I don't know about other forums but I can tell you that Sam has had nothing to do with this on HN. I know that because I'm making the decisions and have had no interaction with Sam about it—or anyone else, for that matter, besides the commenters that I've replied to in these threads and an emailer I just spent the better part of an hour replying to.

The reason this story is getting flagged on HN (or censored, if you like - people mean whatever they want by that word) is that the community is rejecting it as off topic. Mods aren't deranking it.

You don't need to have interactions with Sam "about it" to have a vested interest in burying this story, which is exactly what you have allowed to happen.

I haven't buried this story. The users who flagged it are doing that. The data suggests they're doing that in good faith, as I've explained in several posts (for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42639323).

It's true that we (i.e. the moderators) sometimes turn flags off on a story, but we only do that when there's enough information in the story to support an intellectually interesting discussion, at least potentially. I don't believe that's the case here, and not because of Sam; the decision would be the same if you replaced his name with anyone else's. The "vested interest" here is not in protecting any person, it's in protecting HN for its intended purpose. I realize that not everyone agrees and not everyone likes this, but that's also the way HN works. Nobody, including me, gets all the threads they want on the frontpage.

I'm 100% sure that in the past I've seen you say that you turn off flags on stories where HN has a vested interest because you don't want the obvious appearance that you're censoring it and you want to be neutral. Yet not only does this story not get that treatment, you personally dive in and make excuses and downvote commentors who, as expected, question the neutral nature of a site deeply involved with the subject matter. Don't want these types of accusations? Stick with your previously stated policy of disabling flagging on HN related topics.

No, the rule is that we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or a YC startup is involved in a story. In the present case, we haven't moderated the story at all, so there's nothing to do less of.

It's true that we've sometimes turned off or reduced the flags on stories in this category, but that has never been a rule.

Well, you've pissed off a lot of people and I assure you that many are thinking the same thing I am. It makes Altman look more guilty and it makes you look complicit in covering that up. I'm actually surprised at how sociopathic the features of this site are. I can't think of anywhere else on the internet that's so clearly manipulated.

Like it getting flagged on HN?

There's a misconception that systematic harmful behavior has to be organized.

The truth is that many antisocial people generate a strong cult following and these people protect the abuser. Given Altman's followers are likely to be over-represented in tech companies, it find it plausible this happened without his intentional involvement.

The real issue we as a society agree that tech companies can have a massive effect on public discourse, yet we have not yet developed a legal framework to hold them accountable.

The OpenAI drama isn't the only reality distortions that Altman has been accused of engaging in. PG himself has said Altman "is extremely good at becoming powerful" [0]. A former Reddit CEO in the past detailed the lengths he was willing to go to get his way[1], in reply to a post called, "What is the longest con you ever pulled", no less. One could say allegedly, but Altman did comment on the former CEO's accusation at the time, and one could also say in his defense that he was being sarcastic in his comment, but it is curious that regardless of whether you take Altman's comment seriously or sarcastically[2] -- in both cases it comes off as a brag that doesn't bother denying the accusation.

I don't know who's right in this case, but parents siding with the more successful and stable siblings doesn't seem too surprising. And if I'm not mistaken, Altman and his sister were both minors at the time, so I don't understand the people who are invested in taking sides. But it does make sense to point out that the parents also have a conflict of interest if something like this happened to two minors under the same roof -- who after all ends up taking the blame (fairly or unfairly) if the minors cannot be blamed?

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma... (he also said something in tweet form after Altman returned to OpenAI as CEO)

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...

[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...

> I believe everything Annie says here.

How is this relevant?

Because if true it is not appropriate for him to be running OpenAI.?!?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com