New ask Hacker News story: Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?
Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?
6 by mactavish88 | 35 comments on Hacker News.
I submitted a link today that got flagged pretty quickly. My original intention was to make people aware of the fact that it seems as though a large number of scientists have signed a declaration claiming that “there is no climate emergency”. I make no claim as to the accuracy of their declaration, and neither support nor deny their claim. I’m not a climate scientist. It seems like a really bad idea though to immediately suppress this kind of information as opposed to being able to have a conversation about it. In general, if any contrarian opinions arise and are immediately flagged and suppressed, does that not just turn HN into an echo chamber? Is there not a better model than flag/suppress? EDIT: My concern with this particular question and submission is not about the content of the articles themselves. (Beyond the fact that they're being linked all over Twitter atm and, if this is a misinformation campaign, then it seems to be gaining traction now in 2022 again) This particular question is UX-oriented and has to do with: 1. I'm concerned about how HN shapes my perspective if the flagging process could suppress meaningful conversation. (Yes, I consume a variety of other sources of information too, and I'm also concerned about how they shape my perspective) In essence, a select few users with enough karma watching for incoming content could shape the entire discourse on HN. Who are these users, and why should I trust their paradigms in shaping mine? 2. The UX involved in flagging on HN seems like it could be improved if there was a reason attached to it. Or some other automated mechanism to immediately notify the submitter as to prior conversation on the topic that isn't available via searching for the topic on HN first.
6 by mactavish88 | 35 comments on Hacker News.
I submitted a link today that got flagged pretty quickly. My original intention was to make people aware of the fact that it seems as though a large number of scientists have signed a declaration claiming that “there is no climate emergency”. I make no claim as to the accuracy of their declaration, and neither support nor deny their claim. I’m not a climate scientist. It seems like a really bad idea though to immediately suppress this kind of information as opposed to being able to have a conversation about it. In general, if any contrarian opinions arise and are immediately flagged and suppressed, does that not just turn HN into an echo chamber? Is there not a better model than flag/suppress? EDIT: My concern with this particular question and submission is not about the content of the articles themselves. (Beyond the fact that they're being linked all over Twitter atm and, if this is a misinformation campaign, then it seems to be gaining traction now in 2022 again) This particular question is UX-oriented and has to do with: 1. I'm concerned about how HN shapes my perspective if the flagging process could suppress meaningful conversation. (Yes, I consume a variety of other sources of information too, and I'm also concerned about how they shape my perspective) In essence, a select few users with enough karma watching for incoming content could shape the entire discourse on HN. Who are these users, and why should I trust their paradigms in shaping mine? 2. The UX involved in flagging on HN seems like it could be improved if there was a reason attached to it. Or some other automated mechanism to immediately notify the submitter as to prior conversation on the topic that isn't available via searching for the topic on HN first.
Comments
Post a Comment