Ask HN: Whatever happened to the no-politics rule?
29 comments
Eternal September happened. There aren't enough old-timers hanging on and flagging off political stories to keep up with the newcomers.
And, there's a tier of "newcomer", 100-200 days old, that has started vociferously defending political stories by creating tenuous connections to technology or entrepreneurship. "What? No stories about the TSA? Well: business travel! So there!".
The trend is towards more political stuff on HN. It's going to amplify and not attenuate unless some concrete intervention is made to deal with it.
The sad thing is, I really think the only thing that needs to happen here is for 'pg to firm up the guideline. He could rewrite one sentence and we'd have an easier time stamping these pointless threads out. Instead, we're obsessing about flag weights and sub-HNs and whatever other geeky solutions we can think of.
And, there's a tier of "newcomer", 100-200 days old, that has started vociferously defending political stories by creating tenuous connections to technology or entrepreneurship. "What? No stories about the TSA? Well: business travel! So there!".
The trend is towards more political stuff on HN. It's going to amplify and not attenuate unless some concrete intervention is made to deal with it.
The sad thing is, I really think the only thing that needs to happen here is for 'pg to firm up the guideline. He could rewrite one sentence and we'd have an easier time stamping these pointless threads out. Instead, we're obsessing about flag weights and sub-HNs and whatever other geeky solutions we can think of.
> Eternal September happened. There aren't enough old-timers hanging on and flagging off political stories to keep up with the newcomers.
Unfortunately, I think this is how it all started on reddit. I think somewhere in late 2007 - early 2008 the front page of reddit started to get filled up with political stories. At first I ignored them, I was just down-voting them hoping that the usual "Lisp is great! | No is not" stories would make it to the front page again. They didn't. Then, it only got worse, with all the LOL Cats stories, then the memes, the IamA posts, and again cats, after which I lost count.
Unfortunately, I think this is how it all started on reddit. I think somewhere in late 2007 - early 2008 the front page of reddit started to get filled up with political stories. At first I ignored them, I was just down-voting them hoping that the usual "Lisp is great! | No is not" stories would make it to the front page again. They didn't. Then, it only got worse, with all the LOL Cats stories, then the memes, the IamA posts, and again cats, after which I lost count.
Not just "not enough people flagging": I have an idea that there's some rule that discounts flags from users who flag too many stories.
If that's true, then when the number of political stories reaches a certain critical mass, everyone who flags all political stories will have their flags ignored.
If that's true, then when the number of political stories reaches a certain critical mass, everyone who flags all political stories will have their flags ignored.
Political articles are kinda about startups, in that America's ridiculous politics makes it a less attractive place to start startups. That said, while I love a political rant, even I steer clear of them here on HNN. Life's too short.
The only politics that interests me in terms of arguable relevance to HNN is anything related to the patent system, or other direct litigation/legislation of technology.
The only politics that interests me in terms of arguable relevance to HNN is anything related to the patent system, or other direct litigation/legislation of technology.
See, I think patents are germane but also a great example of a topic we suck at talking about. My guess is that fewer than 20% of the most active commenters on HN know how to interpret a patent, and less than 5% of those commenters have had direct engagement with the patent system (in litigation or in acquisition). So what we're left with is a room full of ignorant† people competing over who can be the angriest about how messed up the patent system is.
† I mean this in the most neutral way possible, in the same sense as I am ignorant of linear algebra.
† I mean this in the most neutral way possible, in the same sense as I am ignorant of linear algebra.
A different way of phrasing this is that the discussions about the TSA 100-200 days ago revealed that many of the newcomers here _do_ want to talk about civil liberties and see it as a big part of startup life. Before Paul changed the ranking to penalize TSA stories, they were common. Before Paul changed the interface to hide the votes on stories, it was clear that there was increasing support -- especially internationally -- for discussing it, and that the bulk of the resistance came from old-timers.
The sad thing is, I really think the only thing that needs to happen is for pg to make it explicit that these stories are within scope. It would revitalize HN and make it much more appealing internationally. I'm not holding my breath, though.
The sad thing is, I really think the only thing that needs to happen is for pg to make it explicit that these stories are within scope. It would revitalize HN and make it much more appealing internationally. I'm not holding my breath, though.
[deleted]
You're going to get a lot of varied responses to this inquiry depending on individual biases.
There are some political articles that are worth discussing here on HN, and there are others which simply encourage malicious trolling. Personally, I think we should avoid the common pitfalls: religion, politics, and money.
That said, we have to talk money to talk startups with any level of candidness. We skirt religion every so often, and we see the zealots on either side wave their flags, but it tends to stay scientific and healthy. The problem with that is it becomes the norm, and eventually, it will devolve. Politics, however, is a tricky one. The increased legislation in the cyber-domain* means we're going to be talking about politics more and more. However, articles leaning either way, personally, do not belong here or in the media period. There was a time when journalists prided themselves on being objective and balanced; that day is long gone.
* Yes, I used the word cyber, sorry, that's what the military calls it.
There are some political articles that are worth discussing here on HN, and there are others which simply encourage malicious trolling. Personally, I think we should avoid the common pitfalls: religion, politics, and money.
That said, we have to talk money to talk startups with any level of candidness. We skirt religion every so often, and we see the zealots on either side wave their flags, but it tends to stay scientific and healthy. The problem with that is it becomes the norm, and eventually, it will devolve. Politics, however, is a tricky one. The increased legislation in the cyber-domain* means we're going to be talking about politics more and more. However, articles leaning either way, personally, do not belong here or in the media period. There was a time when journalists prided themselves on being objective and balanced; that day is long gone.
* Yes, I used the word cyber, sorry, that's what the military calls it.
I've been happily flagging away, but I don't think it's as anywhere bad as it was around 6 months ago or whenever all the TSA rage was at its peak. Look at the items on /best - fairly encouraging.
Right now there are only two items on the front page that could be classified as political, and they both seem reasonably on topic. (Why is America the 'no-vacation nation'?, North Carolina governor refuses to block anti-muni broadband law). Much rather those than another article about Bitcoin or a pretentious blog post about "disruption".
Right now there are only two items on the front page that could be classified as political, and they both seem reasonably on topic. (Why is America the 'no-vacation nation'?, North Carolina governor refuses to block anti-muni broadband law). Much rather those than another article about Bitcoin or a pretentious blog post about "disruption".
Politicians decide that they're competent enough to make legislation about technology, so we have to start discussing politics, and delude ourselves that all of us are competent enough to do so.
I don't think anyone's ever complained about technology related articles. It's the stuff like TSA, Gay Marriage, and so on.
The problem with these topics is they can't be debated rationally since their underlying issues are ones of judgment (In the case of the TSA the judgment is how much a person is willing to be violated for the possibility of being safer and in the case of Gay Marriage it's what level of equality people are entitled to).
So these discussions will inevitably devolve into emotive bickering which is unproductive and adds a level of unpleasantness to the enviornment
The problem with these topics is they can't be debated rationally since their underlying issues are ones of judgment (In the case of the TSA the judgment is how much a person is willing to be violated for the possibility of being safer and in the case of Gay Marriage it's what level of equality people are entitled to).
So these discussions will inevitably devolve into emotive bickering which is unproductive and adds a level of unpleasantness to the enviornment
I can't understand why anyone would downvote this comment. I can see how one could disagree with it. But it's clearly a good faith comment.
I believe that a lot of the recent articles related to politics also happen to be related to issues which deeply irk the HN community (such as domain seizures, Protect IP act etc.), which is why they haven't been deaded.
Those articles are fine by me, as long as they remain technical in the discussion.
What I am personally tired of seeing are The Atlantic articles about the "super rich" and whatnot, and other "outrage articles" that should only be on very left-leaning discussion communities.
What I am personally tired of seeing are The Atlantic articles about the "super rich" and whatnot, and other "outrage articles" that should only be on very left-leaning discussion communities.
Even pg seems to participate in political discussions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2571608.
So I don't see how anything can be done about it. I keep flagging away at articles, but I don't know how those are used for moderation. I have said it once, and I'll say it again: problems like these require a strong moderator presence and consistent moderation to be fixed - if they are deemed problems by the moderators at all.
So I don't see how anything can be done about it. I keep flagging away at articles, but I don't know how those are used for moderation. I have said it once, and I'll say it again: problems like these require a strong moderator presence and consistent moderation to be fixed - if they are deemed problems by the moderators at all.
To my mind, that's the worst thing about political stories. They're sneaky. Every once in awhile, one comes around that grabs you by the neck and demands a response. Now you've (a) subtly psychologically committed yourself to discussing that topic on HN in the future and (b) sent a message widening the scope of inquiry on HN.
Does Paul Graham really believe Robert Reich editorials are within HN's scope? Organized-labor appreciatin' liberal Democrat speakin': of course they aren't.
Does Paul Graham really believe Robert Reich editorials are within HN's scope? Organized-labor appreciatin' liberal Democrat speakin': of course they aren't.
This is not quite the same thing as "politics" but when it comes to certain issues under discussion I often feel like I'm forced into a choice between:
* A unequivocal angry response,
* Leaving the community entirely.
This is because on certain topics there are loud elements of the "hacker" community whom I disagree with so fundamentally that I simply cannot tolerate their viewpoints going unchallenged.
I've been able to mostly unlearn this reaction when it comes to actual politics, but on race or (much more frequently, here) gender issues it remains fully in effect.
To a certain extent, I'm at wits' end: I get a lot of value out of HN but when a topic like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2571874 comes up it absolutely destroys my mood and my productivity.
And there's no good answer -- stories like that absolutely should be discussed; it's just that the discussion so often disgusts me...
(Edit: all of that rambling is to say that politics stories naturally have the same siren call of some sort of 'moral' obligation to speak up for one's point of view.)
* A unequivocal angry response,
* Leaving the community entirely.
This is because on certain topics there are loud elements of the "hacker" community whom I disagree with so fundamentally that I simply cannot tolerate their viewpoints going unchallenged.
I've been able to mostly unlearn this reaction when it comes to actual politics, but on race or (much more frequently, here) gender issues it remains fully in effect.
To a certain extent, I'm at wits' end: I get a lot of value out of HN but when a topic like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2571874 comes up it absolutely destroys my mood and my productivity.
And there's no good answer -- stories like that absolutely should be discussed; it's just that the discussion so often disgusts me...
(Edit: all of that rambling is to say that politics stories naturally have the same siren call of some sort of 'moral' obligation to speak up for one's point of view.)
The sexual harassment story was so over-the-top that it didn't bother me in a "sign of the times" way. I feel bad for some of the people who chimed in to defend the man-o-centric maleocracy on that thread, because I'm confident that 98% of this community --- and closer to 99.9% of the subset of this community that hires people or Pays Money For Things --- finds those threads repellent.
But I know the feeling; I'm the same way on the piracy threads, and I know from private conversations with other "well respected" HN people that I'm not the only person that gets exasperated by some of the most popular ethics on HN.
But I know the feeling; I'm the same way on the piracy threads, and I know from private conversations with other "well respected" HN people that I'm not the only person that gets exasperated by some of the most popular ethics on HN.
Your comment on yesterday's submission "Byron Sonne's G20 Focus Cost Him Dearly" indicates that your politics detector is over-sensitive. The article (and the HN discussion) isn't political in any meaningful way. It's about the law and the legal limits of freedom, subjects that seem (to me) to interest a significant fraction of programmers. The article's protagonist doesn't even claim a political motive. He was just performing an experiment to determine what the law is, while satisfying a programmer-like curiosity about a system's vulnerabilities.
The comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2574877
The comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2574877
Dissect this comment to study a perfect example of how politics attaches itself to HN. "It's not about politics. It's about law and the legal limits of freedom."
Of course that's interesting to programmers! In the same sense as Eric S. Raymond's statement that real programmers are all cap-L libertarians who believe in concealed carry laws.
I'm a security professional and friends of multiple friends of Byron Sonne, for whom this was an important story. Heck, I think it's an important story. What I think is important for us to understand is that not every important story needs to be covered here. There is nothing HN can do about this story other than kvetch and speculate about Sonne's ex-wife. (No, really, go look.)
Here's an acid test for "law and limits of freedom" stories: is anyone going to disagree about them in good faith? And, in good faith, is anyone going to make a business or technology decision differently in light of that story? No? Then it doesn't need to be here.
Of course that's interesting to programmers! In the same sense as Eric S. Raymond's statement that real programmers are all cap-L libertarians who believe in concealed carry laws.
I'm a security professional and friends of multiple friends of Byron Sonne, for whom this was an important story. Heck, I think it's an important story. What I think is important for us to understand is that not every important story needs to be covered here. There is nothing HN can do about this story other than kvetch and speculate about Sonne's ex-wife. (No, really, go look.)
Here's an acid test for "law and limits of freedom" stories: is anyone going to disagree about them in good faith? And, in good faith, is anyone going to make a business or technology decision differently in light of that story? No? Then it doesn't need to be here.
Even your present reply makes me glad that the Sonne article was submitted to HN. To you, the Sonne story is important. To me, it seems important, but I can't be sure what the article's biases might be. I suspect there are some, since I generally have faith in Ontario's justice system. I know of no better place on the internet than HN to have an article's flaws exposed. The absence of significant disagreement in the HN discussion increased the article's credibility for me. Your reply offers some further evidence that Sonne really is a good-standing member of the security profession, and being a friend of a friend of an apparently level-headed HN contributor is to his credit.
It's actually in the rules that you're not supposed to post comments stating the rules. (Whoops!)
So these stories get posted, nobody can post in the comments that the story isn't proper, and the submitter never finds out that he's doing wrong. Especially when people start upvoting stories that break the rules. (Again, because they don't know the rules.)
Most people don't read the rules for a site before they start posting stories and comments. Even if you try to force them to. That's human nature and should be taken into account when designing a site like this.
So these stories get posted, nobody can post in the comments that the story isn't proper, and the submitter never finds out that he's doing wrong. Especially when people start upvoting stories that break the rules. (Again, because they don't know the rules.)
Most people don't read the rules for a site before they start posting stories and comments. Even if you try to force them to. That's human nature and should be taken into account when designing a site like this.
Two things, I think:
1) Increasing numbers of political stories are tightly integrated with startup life and technology -- so Fred Wilson et. al. are weighing in, and that leads to followon discussion
2) Many people on HN are interested in talking about these issues. So, while Paul and the old-timers would rather not (and change the rules when necessary), there are always plenty of politically-related stories that do meet the HN guidelines.
1) Increasing numbers of political stories are tightly integrated with startup life and technology -- so Fred Wilson et. al. are weighing in, and that leads to followon discussion
2) Many people on HN are interested in talking about these issues. So, while Paul and the old-timers would rather not (and change the rules when necessary), there are always plenty of politically-related stories that do meet the HN guidelines.
Not talking about politics is almost the charter of this site. It's was conceived of as a Reddit for people that share the mindset of hacker startup founders and couldn't stomach the noise of Reddit. Read the guidelines "inside-out" for a description of the problem with Reddit at the time HN was started. Note the things that leap out of the guidelines as concrete examples and not abstractions. Politics. Cute animal pictures. Videos of disasters. Crime.
There is a place for people, including people who share the mindset of hacker startup founders, to share cat pictures and civil liberties discussions. It's called Reddit.
We don't need two Reddits.
We do need at least one HN.
There is a place for people, including people who share the mindset of hacker startup founders, to share cat pictures and civil liberties discussions. It's called Reddit.
We don't need two Reddits.
We do need at least one HN.
I haven't noticed an increase of exclusively political articles being submitted, but I suppose that there seems to be an increase in tech related political stuff overall, such as the 'protect IP act' and that sort of thing.
I wonder how often these "HN existential angst" subjects come up, and how their frequency correlates with HN's traffic.
S.P.: feel free to start political threads in http://textchannels.com/Politics
S.P.: feel free to start political threads in http://textchannels.com/Politics
But now, it seems to me that the number of surviving politics articles seems to be rapidly increasing, and the number of [dead]-ed ones rapidly decreasing. Is it just my imagination?