First of all, I'd like to thank the moderator dang. I don't always agree, nor do I expect to agree. I'm comfortable with disagreements.
If we are serious about avoiding echochamber effects, then we shouldn't take voting so seriously. What is wrong with having a polite disagreement? Why should we value popularity?
Have we reached a point where we cannot discuss certain topics as adults? If so, can those individuals not simply choose to opt-out of the discussions?
I didn't read the discussion in question, but I don't understand what stopping a discussion solves. From my perspective discussions should be stopped when they are needlessly toxic, when participants can no longer advance their ideas politely. Humans have limitations, sometimes emotions become too hot. I appreciate when dang closes these types of discussions.
An illegitimate reason to censor would be to remove ideas which cannot be countered, but the reader disagrees with. Some people find disagreements and discussions disturbing. Others enjoy the opportunity to challenge their ideas, as a matter of 'intellectual curiosity'. Some simply relish in the tactics of formulating arguments, regardless of the underlying position.
> I didn't read the discussion in question, but I don't understand what stopping a discussion solves.
The explanation dang gives above is that it prevents discussion that is not "intellectually curious". This type of discussion occurs on HN on a daily basis, but some topics seem to have an extra layer of moderation filters to go through, presumably because they are nearly guaranteed to create significant disharmony. Which is fine - if optimizing for community harmony takes precedence over free discussion of particularly controversial topics, so be it. I just don't like that combined with a claim that HN is in no way an echo chamber.
But of course, transparency and honesty are simply my personal preferences, and HN can't cater to every individual's personal preferences. Surely there are some people here that would not enjoy having a list of blacklisted topics explicitly published, perhaps because it would give the impression of false equivalency or some other perception like that.
I'll agree that it is an echochamber. Voting/flagging will always cause that. In someways this brand of moderation cements that. Perhaps the lack of willingness to have an explicit list of verbotten topics is a way to avoid ossification or deny that it has happened?
Mises.org and their lengthy critiques of MMT/UBI are shadowbanned. In my reading of what you've explained, it sounds like this is banned because users are incapable of discussing it in good faith?
For me that is a poor reason, we should strive to be better. Moderators should be able handle it. After all if the goal is intellectual curiosity, but the community can't accept critical articles of a heterodox economic theory...
Issues surrounding the CCP are another divisive topic. These threads are usually invaded by pro-CCP trolls and whataboutists.
I agree that it would be nice to have an admission of topics or domains which moderators feel HN is incapable of discussing. I expect that this would challenge users to discuss these topics civilly.
If we are serious about avoiding echochamber effects, then we shouldn't take voting so seriously. What is wrong with having a polite disagreement? Why should we value popularity?
Have we reached a point where we cannot discuss certain topics as adults? If so, can those individuals not simply choose to opt-out of the discussions?
I didn't read the discussion in question, but I don't understand what stopping a discussion solves. From my perspective discussions should be stopped when they are needlessly toxic, when participants can no longer advance their ideas politely. Humans have limitations, sometimes emotions become too hot. I appreciate when dang closes these types of discussions.
An illegitimate reason to censor would be to remove ideas which cannot be countered, but the reader disagrees with. Some people find disagreements and discussions disturbing. Others enjoy the opportunity to challenge their ideas, as a matter of 'intellectual curiosity'. Some simply relish in the tactics of formulating arguments, regardless of the underlying position.