This is, like the article states, hostile to the user.
First, moderation should be clear enough that I do not have to ask "why?". Second, I have to trust the person I am emailing to give me a true, unbiased, answer. I will assume dang cannot spend time to thoroughly think through every question and complaint.
I know why I get rate limited, it is because "We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments and/or get involved in flamewars." I am always accused of this but it is never explained. In trying to defend my idea I get labeled as getting into a flamewar even when I am doing things like citing evidence to prove my point.
But dang is the only mediator of this subjective label.
Dang has said "Flamewar comments routinely get the largest number of responses." What? So post post a controversial hypothesis (note that something controversial does not mean it is not true) which creates a lot of responses, and then the comment gets flagged?
Also, for me to communicate with dang, it means I have to give him my email, which is not required to make an account on this site.
Also, the HN Guidelines say "Please don't post shallow dismissals".
What is a downvote but the perfection of a shallow dismissal? Requiring people to comment when voting would end the gang dismissal of new/different ideas and foster creative thinking instead of crushing them into oblivion.
I don't think the article states this - whatever HNs many problems, 'chasing growth at all costs' and 'lack of explanation for moderation actions' are not among them.
First, moderation should be clear enough that I do not have to ask "why?".
That's not a reasonable standard, the target for such things has to be something like 'most users, most of the time' rather than you personally.
Also, for me to communicate with dang, it means I have to give him my email, which is not required to make an account on this site.
Also, the HN Guidelines say "Please don't post shallow dismissals".
It sounds like you want to use a messageboard exclusively on your terms. That's fine but it shouldn't be surprising to you most messageboards, being populated and maintained by other people, can't easily accomodate that.
> I don't think the article states this - whatever HNs many problems, 'chasing growth at all costs'
If HN is a conduit for YC, why would HN not want mindshare that reflects what YC wants? For instance, is this post not getting upvotes because it reflects negativly on these internet companies?
> That's not a reasonable standard, the target for such things has to be something like 'most users, most of the time' rather than you personally.
When you code, you have to comment so any idiot can understand your logic, correct? I do not see why this is not true here. The standards are set by an algorithm that we cannot see.
> It sounds like you want to use a messageboard exclusively on your terms.
No, dang wants it on his terms. I do not want it on my terms or dangs terms. I want it on the community's terms. But there is not voting here on the topic. It is authoritarian and I want to get rid of authoritarianism because that serves the most people the best. I know it is messy and ugly, but that is humanity.
While what I brought up here is tangential to the article, it is of the same expression. Authoritarian control for a purpose that benefits the authoritarian.
If HN is a conduit for YC, why would HN not want mindshare that reflects what YC wants? For instance, is this post not getting upvotes because it reflects negativly on these internet companies?
HN's been around for nearly 20 years. You can check its growth.
When you code, you have to comment so any idiot can understand your logic, correct? I do not see why this is not true here.
You do not have to do this when you code and I don't understand its relationship to HN. Social spaces, whether online or off don't work like code. And the 'standards' here are largely set by people.
No, dang wants it on his terms. I do not want it on my terms or dangs terms. I want it on the community's terms. But there is not voting here on the topic. It is authoritarian and I want to get rid of authoritarianism because that serves the most people the best. I know it is messy and ugly, but that is humanity.
If you want to design a messageboard by voting, you should try that. It's not how this one or, really, any is designed. Differences of opinion on how things should be made and work are not, in themselves, 'authoritarianism'.
Authoritarian control for a purpose that benefits the authoritarian
I think this would be a lot more persuasive if it didn't come off like the conclusion you're motivated-reasoning yourself to rather than something supported by concrete facts or experiences.
> Social spaces, whether online or off don't work like code.
This very site uses code to control the conversation between two people. Where does this happen in the real world? Where is the algorithm that can make what comes out of my mouth not reach your ears? Where is the upvote floating over my head in real life? CAn someone new I meet look back at everything I said in my life?
Below is the third party on HN, like a policeman looking over our shoulder 24/7.
It was not a comment about "growth". It was a comment about function.
The article's claims, to which you were drawing a parallel, are about growth, not function. Now you're basically saying you're not actually drawing a parallel and the rest of it is very difficult to follow, it reads to me that mostly you want to call HN authoritarian (which, ok, but not very interesting on its own) but for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, you'd prefer not do anything about it - things like, say, proposing an alternative design or sending an email are right out.
It is about growth and function. Function is manipulated to foster growth. That is the process of enshitification.
And the growth here is not specifically about HN, but also YC and the "growth" of consent. Eg. "tech is good"
EDITING to say:
Never mind. Evil and greed are proliferating and promoted on the internet. This young girl school shooter proves it if you look at what she had access to and what she watched on discord.
