This whole argument is just so disjointed I don’t know where to start other than to once again say that I very much understand that in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should be but if you’re trying to make the argument that that is the same thing as the rules are written I would disagree.
But in this same post you’ve said:
1. HN needs to be interesting to the MAJORITY of users.
2. HN is not designed to serve MAJORITY opinion.
3. There is no MINORITY of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons
4. There is however a MINORITY of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening.
You won’t even admit that there is a potential problem here that there exists a group of people who flag things entirely on ideological grounds with zero bearing on the rules as they are written.
I understand that you’re a moderator here and I’m not but I think you’re doing a bad job and being either dishonest or intentionally obtuse here. At no point did I ever get the impression there was even the slightest sense of curiosity from the moderation team no matter how many times it was mentioned. It’s always the same reply, things are going exactly as we want them to and you’re crazy to suggest otherwise.
> in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should
I don't think that things are going "great" or "exactly as they should" on HN or in the world at large. It takes constant effort to keep political/ideological toxicity from both ends of the spectrum from poisoning this place. I would love it if HN could have a positive influence on politics and the broader world, but in reality we don't have much clout. My personal hope is for every person to have the greatest amount of freedom, opportunity, abundance and agency that can possibly be attained, including for the least privileged in society, and I'd happily have that be an ongoing topic of discussion on HN. But interesting new ideas about that are notably missing from the ragey politics-related discussions seem to happen here.
> 1. HN needs to be interesting to the majority of users.
Yes, otherwise the audience will leave and HN will die.
> 2. HN is not designed to serve majority opinion.
By that I mean we're not about catering to people's opinions about politics/ideology the way news media outlets cater to an ideological position (e.g., Fox News).
> 3. There is no minority of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons
Dan and I have both been doing this job for years and we look at the flagging patterns every day. There are some users who do mis-use the flag feature, and when that happens we turn their flags off.
> 4. There is however a minority of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening.
The users complaining about "censorship" or "suppression" of a category of stories make up a relatively small cohort of people who want HN to be more focused on that category of stories, yes. But we look at their activity (submissions, comments) and see that what they want HN to be is different from what HN has always been intended to be, which is a site for curiosity, not rage.
If you can frame your arguments in these terms, we'll have a better discussion. I.e., if you can point out the evidence that we're doing a bad job of optimizing HN for curiosity rather than rage.
But in this same post you’ve said:
1. HN needs to be interesting to the MAJORITY of users.
2. HN is not designed to serve MAJORITY opinion.
3. There is no MINORITY of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons
4. There is however a MINORITY of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening.
You won’t even admit that there is a potential problem here that there exists a group of people who flag things entirely on ideological grounds with zero bearing on the rules as they are written.
I understand that you’re a moderator here and I’m not but I think you’re doing a bad job and being either dishonest or intentionally obtuse here. At no point did I ever get the impression there was even the slightest sense of curiosity from the moderation team no matter how many times it was mentioned. It’s always the same reply, things are going exactly as we want them to and you’re crazy to suggest otherwise.