Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? We're trying for a bit higher quality level than internet median. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking that spirit more to heart, we'd really appreciate it.
Please explain the problem with my comment on slavery. The first part is factually accurate, the second is a valid opinion to express.
I was downvoted, why?
You know what whatever. I know better than to ask HN moderation for any sort of transparency or any dedication to actually fostering discussion vs just reinforcing the particularly awful groupthink that dominates this place.
Factual accuracy isn't enough to make a comment substantive, and the point about "wage slavery not being much better" is an empty cliché. We're looking for thoughtful discussion here, not throwaway lines.
I've posted thousands of comments explaining HN moderation—probably tens of thousands, in fact—so I'll have to differ with you on it lacking "any sort of transparency". What would you like to know?
What are the actual rules? You are the most arbitrary and least transparent mod I've ever dealt with. You wield the word "unsubstantive" as a cudgel. You seemingly only hold the goal of stifling discussion that might be against the accepted HN positions. The result is board that yes, does mostly lack flame wars. It's also bland and processed and almost impossible to contribute to, and I lay the blame on that squarely on you. The very poor downvote system does not help. Restricting downvotes to high karma users just lets a handful of people dominate discussion.
> "wage slavery not being much better" is an empty cliché
7 million+ working poor. Millions more one unexpected expense away from financial ruin. "empty cliche".
Also could explain to me why this
> > We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power.
is fine. This response
> No we don't, that is called slavery.
is fine.
But my post reaches the bar of unsubstantive flamebait.
I asked what you wanted to know, but reading this response, it doesn't seem like you want to know things so much as to fulminate against HN and how it is moderated. I'm sorry you don't like it, and if I saw a path from here to maybe getting you to like it better, I'd be happy to try. But I'm not seeing that yet. It takes a ton of time and energy to answer posts like this, and that investment only makes sense when there's a visible modicum of good faith to begin with—otherwise it just results in twice as much fulmination, which helps nothing, and takes resources away from helping other users.
I can take a crack at replying to your question about those specific comments though. A comment that said only "We live at the absolute _extreme_ of capital power over labor power" would be lame and unsubstantive, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21983921 went on to say other things that made for a thoughtful comment, though the generic ideological topic (unions-good-or-bad) is a bad one for HN. I don't see why we would moderate a comment like that.
The reply "No we don't, that is called slavery." is lame and pedantic, but I wouldn't call it flamebait. That is the contrarian dynamic which can't resist pointing out a logical flaw in something somebody said. HN has this all over the place, as does everywhere else ("someone is wrong on the internet"...) They are low-quality comments but they don't typically start flamewars unless there is some other baity element in there.
You, on the other hand, have been posting obviously flamebaity and ideological battle comments as well as fuming about "groupthink" and "wrongthink" and downvoting and how awful everything here is. You might find HN less "impossible to contribute to" if you took its intended spirit to heart. You could start with trying for thoughtful conversation and assuming good faith, as well as the rest of what https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ask.
>
I asked what you wanted to know, but reading this response, it doesn't seem like you want to know things so much as to fulminate against HN and how it is moderated.
and instead of reflecting on that for a minute you will continue on in exactly the same manner.
I was able to contribute to this site for years without issue before you came along. I find the moderation here now arbitrary, heavy handed, and pretty extremely biased.
> You, on the other hand, have been posting obviously flamebaity and ideological battle comments as well as fuming about "groupthink" and "wrongthink" and downvoting and how awful everything here is
Having and expressing any sort of ideology is against the rules. Great thanks.
Higher karma users have the ability to downvote. They use that to enforce their ideology. Anything that goes against the grain too much immediately gets downvoted and flagged. You personally described the my comment on wage slavery being bad as an "empty cliche". That's not condescending low effort flamebait?
You are so entrenched in your own ideology you can't even tell how deep you've gone. Just completely impossible to reason with.
> I was able to contribute to this site for years without issue before you came along.
When people go on about how badly they were treated on HN, but omit any verifiable details, I call such comments linkless martyrs [1]. Without links, readers have no way to make up their minds for themselves [2]. The past pattern has been that such claims are greatly exaggerated, leave out critical details, or are made up. Sob stories and tales of injustice are easy to produce, but looking at what actually happened reveals otherwise.
Perhaps your case is the exception? If so, you can easily prove it with links that show how you were posting like this "for years without issue before you came along". pg was 10x quicker to ban accounts than we are, so my bet is that what you're saying is false.
You take pride in coining cute little phrases like that?
> If so, you can easily prove it with links that show how you were posting like this "for years without issue before you came along".
I really have no interest in playing your games at this point. I explained myself, you dismissed everything I said and seem to have zero interest in an honest conversation. Instead you'd rather pick a line and jerk yourself off about what a way with words you have.
> "wage slavery not being much better" is an empty cliché
Still haven't explained how that isn't unsubstantive flamebait. Smug jerk.
I realize we're probably past bridgeable distance here, but if there's a way to explain it, I'd be curious to hear what would have counted as a more helpful response.
