The effect is extremely similar though, don't you think? If not worse, for e.g. shadow banning.

Shadowbanning on HN is mostly for spammers and new accounts that show evidence of past abuses.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Once an account has a history on HN, we tell people that we're banning them and why.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Perhaps you should have a public transparency log for all mod-determined transgressions.

Might allay some of the accusations we're seeing here of accused abuses.

My sense is that such a moderation log would lead to an order-of-magnitude explosion of litigious meta discussion, which is last thing we we need or want.

If that's right, then it's worse than that, because then metaness would consume a lot more resources than it already does, starving the rest of the site of other things we need to work on. That would be a vicious feedback loop; I'd rather look for virtuous ones.

HN moderation is far more transparent than it was before Dan took over (when 'pg moderated, things like subjective shadow bans really were a norm), and more transparent than it was when he started --- I hesitate to explain how, for fear of fulfilling Dan's prophecy, but one simple, not-fraught example would be the expansion of the guidelines.

I perceive no corresponding change in the amount of meta threads about mis-moderation; noodling debates based on random accusations are still evergreen here.

If I were involved in moderating HN (thank Christ I'm not), I'd conclude that substantive process-level changes aimed at quelling these kinds of debates probably aren't a productive goal.

HN is quite a lot larger than anything I've personally moderated. There are scaling issues involved.

TIL that I can search for comments by:<case_sensitive_username>.

Well, I never!

I apologize. I've used the term "shadow banned" inaccurately.

It's apparently a synonym for something I only think of as hell banned. My quirky brain thinks of HN banning as shadow banning because the comments are visible if you have "show dead" on and can often be brought back to life if couched for. (So, you live in the shadows.)

Thus being banned on HN doesn't necessarily mean you have no voice at all. It can mean fewer people will see your comments and only good comments will be brought to life.

This leaves the door open for expressing yourself and even for potentially finding your way back to being a member in good standing, though that may only happen if something substantially changes an your life.

But people do, at times, have substantial positive changes. Homeless people do sometimes get back into housing. Very sick people do sometimes get better. Drug addicts do sometimes get clean.

And then their behavior may improve without them "trying to behave better" because their life sucks less.

I don't understand the association you're making between having personal problems and being an asshole in online conversations.

In my experience, on the one hand, most adults have some sort of personal problem that complicates their life, and on the other hand, people who dont' seem to be very troubled by what goes on in their personal life are perfectly capable of being disruptive assholes. So there is really no reason to single out specific classes of personal problems as causing disruptive behaviour.

I'm also confused by the way you use the term "sick". Do you mean it as in mental illness, or general sickness, like having the flu, or a chronic disease?

In any case, I think you're looking for a deeper explanation of why people behave like assholes online. I don't think there is one. People sometimes behave like assholes online, even when they're perfectly fine people otherwise. You just have to find a way to make them see their contributions as others see them, then they will stop being assholes because nobody likes to come accorss as an asshole. Online or off.

I can tell you, from experience in this very thread, it feels about as shitty. :/

It's marginalization, fundamentally. A very small group of people (or a single person) decides to use their power to silence you, tell you how wrong you are, and tie your hands behind your proverbial back so you can't defend yourself.

Dang supports it, and others join in. I can't tell you how many times I'll be browsing HN and see my score drop from one page load to the next by exactly as many points as I have comments in my history that can be downvoted. Or how many times a comment of mine gets flagged for reasons that have nothing to do with the HN guidelines.

This forum is broken, and is in dire need of disruption.

I read through a few of your posts on your other account.

In this case am I right to say you feel you are the recipient of unfair abuse? More so then single individual downvotes can be expected? When this happens you feel your opinions aren't respected and valued? I feel shitty when that happens too. I've avoided commenting on controversial threads as a result.

I think the problem is what you're saying is lost in your tone (it also appears to be happening in this post too).

It must be frustrating to feel like you're being singled out. More so when you feel hostility from individuals who disagree with you. It can feel very personal, when someone is attacking you and your ideas. Especially when you Know you have a point and it feels like you aren't being heard.

I've spent a lot of time trying to deal with this conflict & trying to be heard and understood. Part of the trick is not taking things too personally, not Making things personal or directing them at an Individual, and instead continuously focusing on the topic at hand. If things devolve to personal attacks of Any sort, I disengage or try to re-focus. My goal is to be heard and understood, and that doesn't happen when the argument devolves to a personal level.

It's hard not to react, but sometimes not reacting & taking the high road is the most productive way forward.

Do you have any insight into why this might be happening? I had a look at your post history and noticed you've posted relatively little this year since a large gap from 2016.

I generally have a lot of respect for HN mods, it's never an easy job.

This happens because one has somehow irked a person who is petty and vindictive and has nothing better to do than click through your profile and downvote every comment they can.

I don't fully understand the mindset that would do this, but it certainly happens.

That's one possible explanation. It's not the only possibility though.

I usually post from diminoten, but moved to this account to try and figure out why I was getting downvoted instantly nearly every time I commented, and why I was losing the same karma as votable posts that I had in the span of seconds sometimes.

HN is not built to handle dissent. Privileges are based on votes, there are minimal to no vote protection tools in place, the guidelines are used as cudgels to beat people who disagree with the popular view, and the moderator (there's more or less only one, dang) prefers to smokescreen and gaslight anyone he doesn't like with generic comments that don't follow the very guidelines he's trying to enforce. Just look at his comment history; it's full of "This doesn't follow guidelines" without any elaboration, and when he does elaborate, it's an incredibly cynical and not-generous interpretation of the comment he's saying isn't acceptable, which is itself a violation of the HN guidelines, specifically the one about addressing the best form of an argument.

Most of the problem is the fact that dang is the primary active moderator on HN. If others were to take over, and he were to be removed or retire, HN would become substantially better, possibly overnight.

Dang needs to be removed for this site to grow and improve. People think HN is growing; it is not. The quality people who used to post here are more or less gone, and HN isn't attracting new quality posters to fill their shoes, precisely because dang moderates very poorly, which pushes away prospective high value posters.

The reality is, it's high time for a replacement to HN.

This is just an FYI that you can take under advisement if you so choose:

Part of the reason you are getting so very much negative attention in this specific discussion is because your comment complaining about the very site you are posting on was the very first comment posted.

This actively interferes with constructive discussion of the article posted as everyone replies to you and your personal complaints instead of engaging with the content of the article. (The term for it is thread shitting. As the author of the piece, I wasn't real happy to see it.)

You also keep focusing on the negative and on points of disagreement and will not drop it.

I'm sympathetic to your frustration, but there are pieces of this that only you can change. I'm aware you are likely to feel I'm "blaming the victim" rather than trying to empower you. My personal default is to wonder what I can do differently on my end to get better outcomes because I'm typically the piece of the equation I have the most control over, regardless of "who is to blame." I'm generally satisfied with that approach.

Last, I will note that my advice to not automatically assume that this one person is behaving badly doesn't translate to "there is no point at which a mod should ever hold an individual accountable for their piece of the puzzle."

That doesn't work. You don't get a free pass for your behavior for all eternity because you're -- for example -- a woman posting in an overwhelmingly male space.

If I thought being a woman posting on HN meant I can do anything at all that I feel like doing and then blame negative reactions on sexism, I would have been banned ages ago -- and rightly so. Saying that it's not okay for the entire group to behave badly towards one individual and then blame their victim for their own choices absolutely doesn't mean the needs of one individual should trump the needs of the entire community. A moderator's job is to find ways to try to serve both needs at the same time, which is a balancing act.

Please note that I waited to say anything to you until after the piece dropped off the front page in hopes of having fewer eyes on my comment, among other things. I thought about various possible tactics and concluded that replying late was probably the least worst option available to me.

Dang doesn't understand any of what you said, and makes zero attempt at improving, neither himself nor the site at large.

I am certainly not guiltless, but consider the fact that I have none of these problems anywhere else I interact with others. Why is it just on HN that I run into these struggles? I am in lots of communities through my daily interactions, and I successfully navigate those, so what's special about HN, other than dang and the site's mechanics?

This place cannot handle dissent. That's literally the definition of a toxic environment, and dang does nothing to create safety for people who might not agree with the mainstream view. That's on him.

>> Why is it just on HN that I run into these struggles

It's because HN is, actually, a very unique internet message board. It is unique in that it takes its own guidelines very seriously and enforces them very actively. Compared to every single other internet message board I've been on (and I've been around the block a few times, like they say) flamewars are prevented effectively and personal attacks are simply not tolerated.

For me, that's what keeps me combing back for more. HN is, well, a safe place, where I can disagree with others, very strongly, without risking that a thread will degenerate into put-downs and name-calling. This is in stark contrast to other message boards where there seems to be a genuine belief that "winning" a thread is some kind of achievement worthy of praise and self-respect.

So to be honest, if you're struggling to adjust to HN but you're feeling fine on other message boards then I'm inclined to believe that, on the balance of probabilities, it's because you bring with you behaviours and ways of communicating that you've learned on other message boards that are incompatible with HN, and that you are unwilling to change.

P.S. :%s/combing back/coming back/g. But it's a funny one, so I'm leaving it like that.

I've been banned on most forums I've frequented for attracting the petty ire of moderators (these are usually low-status, unpaid volunteers starved for power and meaning). I'm opinionated and provocative, but I always honor the spirit of the law wherever I choose to be, and dang seems to appreciate that despite probably not liking me as a person. For that I say he's an exceptionally good moderator, but there is certainly a demographic problem on HN that I expect is unfixable and outside management's control.

edit: I just looked briefly at the recent threads in your comment history and had to laugh at "I'm afraid I don't really follow what you've written here." And I see your reply here is flagged-and-killed. I continue to not deny any of your complaints specifically.

A. I'm a fan of both how HN works and the moderating staff. (I don't wear that on my sleeve more for reasons covered in the post under discussion: Public praise frequently goes weird places.) So I'm absolutely not sympathetic to your conclusion here.

B. If you think it's absolutely not you and dang and HN are simply broken because everyone else likes you just fine, the logical solution is to just leave. I've basically done that numerous times over the years -- left a forum that just didn't work for me personally -- and I've generally not been all blamey about it. In most cases, I leave quietly and don't run around trash talking them afterwards. I don't expect every single forum to be a good fit for me personally.

C. If you decide you value something about HN enough to keep coming back in spite of the problems you are experiencing, there are some best practices for trying to make that work. Here are a few:

1. Try to understand why other people do what they do in a sympathetic manner. This includes dang.

2. Try to focus on what you can do differently more than on what you wish others would do differently.

3. Try to put some of your negative feelings down and stop making your baggage about the site a large part of your focus when engaging in discussion here. It just keeps the problem alive unnecessarily.

D. I don't really care to engage you further here. I decided replying late was the least worst answer in part because not replying at all can come across as "giving someone the cold shoulder" and can add to their problems, if only inadvertently.

But the bane of my personal existence is people who latch onto me personally and act like they think I'm personally required to meet their emotional needs, magically fix their problem that I have no power to fix, be endlessly kind to them while they are ugly to me and so forth. Choosing to respond in hopes that it might help you does not make me personally responsible for your feelings and your problems for all eternity.

Edit: in the interest of avoiding temptation to reply to you again, please note that my introduction to you was you thread shitting my post which is an article I personally wrote. Yet you clearly seem to think you never do anything wrong and it's everyone else here and also seem to think I should care greatly about your feelings and your needs and your problems while you care absolutely not at all about mine.

That's a big fat Nope.

First rule of the downvotes: "Never talk about the downvotes".

Seems in bounds for a thread about moderation.

And second-last of the guidelines.

Also, people are broken.