mike_tan

I know who Paul Graham is.

>Flags are not used as downvotes

I'm not as certain about that.

>You submissions aren't being censored. Ordinary, everyday members of HN are flagging them as not adding value. If you spent some time here learning about these things you'd understand the dynamics better, but after our discussion on the other item you submitted complaining about how things work, I doubt you'll do that.

I reasoned about every point we talked about.

As you said, I didn't answer the question, so you don't know how long I've been reading HN.

>I doubt you'll do that

Please! The premise that I don't know how things work seem to be a construction of your desire to argue against me, even if it's not on merit of the argument alone.

The submission is going to get censored, even if there is a proportion of people interested in talking about the topic.

It's a shame, but there's no point in talking about it.

"14 hours ago you registered your username 7 hours ago you submitted an item that appears to have been flagged off the front page * 2 hours ago you submit an item about how unfair that is, and how everyone should have instantly realised how valuable your submission was. * Now you complain that your complaint is being flagged. * When I explain about how things work, you just continually come back and say that it shouldn't be like that. Well, that's how it might appear. Welcome to HN."

>Well, that's how it might appear. Welcome to HN.

This is a dead submission. Censored.

"Let me summarise what I think you're saying: * You saw value in it. * A few others clearly saw value in it. * Still others saw it as having negative value. * The ones who thought it had negative value flagged it. * They should not have done so. * Something should be done. Are you going to suggest what should be done?"

This submission got the same treatment. It would seem, even trying to talk about change can't be done. A fair vote taken down.

I would hope -- but this isn't going to happen, by the looks of it -- that people would see the discussion and then not call out posts as being "pointless" or hype, or like Reddit, or link-bait, just because it's not to their particular liking. There shouldn't be a lexical kill switch for submissions.

Or if it's moderators, they should re-think censorship as a reasonable action for posts that may not be to their taste.

>don't just submit raw data and expect everyone instantly to agree that it's interesting and of value.

It was of value. People were taking action over the data.

You may not be looking to start a business, or do projects:

(To quote you from earlier) "And if I were starting a business again..."

But a lot of people on here are. And the very people who needed the data the most had it taken away from them.

You edited your reply.

> Colin has very patiently reasoned with you about what may have happened

And I patiently reasoned back. It's a discussion. Yes, he has been somewhat helpful, but it doesn't explain how, a seemly increasing, number of submissions are disappearing from the front page.

> I agree that lists of three-letter domains, or four-letter domains, with this or that top-level domain suffix make for dreadfully boring submissions

People were voting it, people were using it to buy domains for projects. I don't read 100% of the stories on the front page either, but calling reasonable submissions out seems to be getting somewhat popular.

Are you saying, objectively you can't see how that list is useful to anyone? Or is this about the submissions not being titillating enough?

"Pointless hipster-TLD is pointless. Utterly pointless."

So pointless that GitHub and codepen.io use them.

edit: You edited your reply...