I didn't have a chance to respond to this over the weekend. Since then you went all-in on doing exactly what I asked you to stop. I have no idea what you were expecting by doing that but it's an obvious ban -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37384119.
I looked through the accounts you mentioned anyhow, out of curiosity to see how strong your case actually was. For a list intended to finger-point at the other side, it's weak sauce. Of the first 4, 3 are nowhere close to breaking the rule we're talking about. The other was posting primarily about environmental issues and I've asked them to stop, but actually they weren't being particularly ideological-battle or flamewarrish about it, so even they didn't really deserve to be mentioned in this context. You can have half a point for that one—that puts your total at 12.5%. That's not just unconvincing, it's evidence for the opposite.
As for your second list, only three of those accounts are banned and they were banned for obvious reasons. I didn't see any borderline calls there, the ideological balance was split, and 3 is a meaningless sample in any case.
So much for your 'data'. What about your arguments?
I'd never claim that HN's moderation is free of bias (how would I know)? What I claim is (1) the complaints about bias we do hear are so isomorphic that there must be a common mechanism generating them, and (2) this mechanism is independent of ideology because we get it in exactly the same way from both poles—right down to pointing fingers at other users every time we ask them to stop breaking the rules. Anyone who bothers to parse out what I just said there (not that anyone should, as this is weedy stuff) can see that's not a relativistic argument.
It's odd for you to argue systemic bias by digging up lists (let alone weak ones) of who gets moderated more. Suppose group X breaks the rules more often—obviously more Xs are going to get moderated. That's evidence of non bias as much as anything. Or to put it in terms you'll surely recognize: maybe more of them are in jail because they commit more crimes.
The truth is that you've been ideologically trolling HN, to the point of conducting some sort of vendetta, so obviously that you crossed the ban line a long time ago. We gave you way more rope than you had any reason to expect. How you turn this excess of patience on our part into bias against you is beyond me. One mark of the ideological mindset (relevant to HN because it's so predictable, and thus so off topic) is this aggrieved certitude of always being the victim—that plus its cousin, total unwillingness to take even a drop of responsibility for anything. (Btw, isn't at least one ideology supposed to be about personal responsibility?) Blame is always on others, never on self, and there's only one reason to read the rules: to bash the refs (and the other team). How about sincerely trying to follow them in the first place, one might wonder? Oh no no—it's all rigged against us so that's unthinkable.
The interesting thing is how consistent this is regardless of ideology; you all resemble your enemies far more than anybody else. As I said, it's isomorphic; and worse than wrong, it's tedious.
I looked through the accounts you mentioned anyhow, out of curiosity to see how strong your case actually was. For a list intended to finger-point at the other side, it's weak sauce. Of the first 4, 3 are nowhere close to breaking the rule we're talking about. The other was posting primarily about environmental issues and I've asked them to stop, but actually they weren't being particularly ideological-battle or flamewarrish about it, so even they didn't really deserve to be mentioned in this context. You can have half a point for that one—that puts your total at 12.5%. That's not just unconvincing, it's evidence for the opposite.
As for your second list, only three of those accounts are banned and they were banned for obvious reasons. I didn't see any borderline calls there, the ideological balance was split, and 3 is a meaningless sample in any case.
So much for your 'data'. What about your arguments?
I'd never claim that HN's moderation is free of bias (how would I know)? What I claim is (1) the complaints about bias we do hear are so isomorphic that there must be a common mechanism generating them, and (2) this mechanism is independent of ideology because we get it in exactly the same way from both poles—right down to pointing fingers at other users every time we ask them to stop breaking the rules. Anyone who bothers to parse out what I just said there (not that anyone should, as this is weedy stuff) can see that's not a relativistic argument.
It's odd for you to argue systemic bias by digging up lists (let alone weak ones) of who gets moderated more. Suppose group X breaks the rules more often—obviously more Xs are going to get moderated. That's evidence of non bias as much as anything. Or to put it in terms you'll surely recognize: maybe more of them are in jail because they commit more crimes.
The truth is that you've been ideologically trolling HN, to the point of conducting some sort of vendetta, so obviously that you crossed the ban line a long time ago. We gave you way more rope than you had any reason to expect. How you turn this excess of patience on our part into bias against you is beyond me. One mark of the ideological mindset (relevant to HN because it's so predictable, and thus so off topic) is this aggrieved certitude of always being the victim—that plus its cousin, total unwillingness to take even a drop of responsibility for anything. (Btw, isn't at least one ideology supposed to be about personal responsibility?) Blame is always on others, never on self, and there's only one reason to read the rules: to bash the refs (and the other team). How about sincerely trying to follow them in the first place, one might wonder? Oh no no—it's all rigged against us so that's unthinkable.
The interesting thing is how consistent this is regardless of ideology; you all resemble your enemies far more than anybody else. As I said, it's isomorphic; and worse than wrong, it's tedious.