from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is there a better model than flagging?

by mactavish88 on 12/26/22, 1:50 PM with 43 comments

I submitted a link today that got flagged pretty quickly. My original intention was to make people aware of the fact that it seems as though a large number of scientists have signed a declaration claiming that “there is no climate emergency”.

I make no claim as to the accuracy of their declaration, and neither support nor deny their claim. I’m not a climate scientist.

It seems like a really bad idea though to immediately suppress this kind of information as opposed to being able to have a conversation about it.

In general, if any contrarian opinions arise and are immediately flagged and suppressed, does that not just turn HN into an echo chamber? Is there not a better model than flag/suppress?

EDIT: My concern with this particular question and submission is not about the content of the articles themselves. (Beyond the fact that they're being linked all over Twitter atm and, if this is a misinformation campaign, then it seems to be gaining traction now in 2022 again)

This particular question is UX-oriented and has to do with:

1. I'm concerned about how HN shapes my perspective if the flagging process could suppress meaningful conversation. (Yes, I consume a variety of other sources of information too, and I'm also concerned about how they shape my perspective) In essence, a select few users with enough karma watching for incoming content could shape the entire discourse on HN. Who are these users, and why should I trust their paradigms in shaping mine?

2. The UX involved in flagging on HN seems like it could be improved if there was a reason attached to it. Or some other automated mechanism to immediately notify the submitter as to prior conversation on the topic that isn't available via searching for the topic on HN first.

by defrost on 12/26/22, 2:07 PM

You submitted two links, both to an industry group headed up by Guus Berkhout:

[quote]

  Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL).

  Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made into law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change sceptics groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies.

  Berkhout claimed the ideal of the organization was to provide an alternative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  In late September 2019 the group produced an open letter which presented a European Climate Declaration, stating that there was no climate emergency and repeating a number of claims that were inconsistent with the scientific evidence on climate.

  A fact check performed by climate scientists for Climate Feedback gave the letter an overall scientific credibility of "very low", and tagged it as "Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading".

  The analysis also added that, out of the roughly 500 signatories, only 10 self-identified as climate scientists. 

  The document was later rebranded as the World Climate Declaration.

[/quote]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout

Climate Science (as laid out by the IPCC) is akin to Foucoult's Pendulum; the earth rotates, and human activity is altering the atmosphere in a measurable manner that traps more heat energy than is normally retained.

You may have a contrarian opinion about measurable facts .. but there are bars and cafes for those.

by troydavis on 12/26/22, 2:59 PM
Your first submission may have been flagged because you wrote (“editorialized”) the title instead of using the actual page title. As https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html says: “Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.”
(Also, the title you chose may have been seen as an attempt to attract extra attention or skew the discussion. Whatever your actual intention, there’s little patience for that.)
by jacquesm on 12/26/22, 7:28 PM
HN has its own mechanisms to keep trash off the homepage, those mechanisms worked as intended. Please don't litter.
by version_five on 12/26/22, 2:48 PM
I saw your submission and I think this is a case where flagging worked well.
My understanding of HN objectives is to promote new and interesting conversation. A "anthropogenic climate change is not real" article doesn't promote a good discussion, it just prompts people to rehash the same old stuff. Not to say that every new article about what Elon Musk did leads to any better conversation, but even many of those get flagged, and at least they are tracking a current event relevant to tech. There is no significant new information in sites like what you posted.
As a secondary point, but no doubt it helped getting the article flagged, it's a low-quality single agenda website that nobody has heard of and has all the hallmarks of a slightly crazy "fake news" (advertorial, whatever you want to call it) site. If an even slightly reputable real news org covered this, it might get flagged less. Though it would still probably lead to the same boring debate and ultimately get flagged anyway
by hotpotamus on 12/26/22, 2:38 PM
How do we know that this large number of scientists actually exist? Have you met each of them and read their work? How do we know that you even submitted a link earlier?
by theCrowing on 12/26/22, 1:51 PM
People can vouch for your submission, nobody did.