Tell HN: Announcing tomhow as a public moderator

Moderator announcement & community reaction

• Many comments warmly welcome the newly public moderator and praise existing moderation as a major reason HN is unusually high‑quality and “sane” compared to the rest of the internet.
• Users are relieved moderation workload is being shared and that having an Australian adds “follow‑the‑sun” coverage.
• Several ask and confirm that moderation is a paid job, not just volunteer work.
• Some express hope that nothing noticeable changes, which they see as a mark of success.

Flagging, downvoting, and “censorship”

• A major thread centers on perceived “flag abuse”: users say it’s become pointless to post certain views (politics, gender, Musk, LLM criticism) because they are quickly flagged or hidden.
• Others counter that:
  • Flags are a community tool, not solely moderators.
  • Many users disagree on what is wrongly flagged, making the complaints hard to act on.
  • HN’s guidelines explicitly discourage political/ideological battles regardless of stance.
• Distinctions are drawn between:
  • Downvotes (“uninteresting”/disagreement) vs flags (“should not be here at all”).
  • Community auto‑killing via flags vs moderator “killing.”
• Some argue downvoting for disagreement is legitimate and mirrors real‑world social friction; others say it creates echo chambers and silences minority views.
• Vouching and emailing [email protected] are highlighted as ways to rescue unfairly killed items; some users report doing this and seeing mixed effectiveness.

Bias, dissent, and controversial topics

• Multiple users claim HN leans left or “establishment,” making conservative or heterodox views hard to sustain; others reply that people on all sides complain of bias, suggesting it’s more about seeing unfiltered opposing views.
• There’s disagreement over whether HN truly allows “dissenting opinions”:
  • Some say minority technical or political views do get discussed but naturally remain unpopular.
  • Others say anything beyond mildly controversial gets buried, especially on flashpoint topics (gender, Musk, AI, certain tech policies).
• A recurring theme: important but “flame‑war‑prone” topics may be suppressed (by flags or the “flamewar detector”) to preserve overall discussion quality, trading some openness for less toxicity.

Moderation philosophy & tools

• Moderators reiterate core principles: curiosity over ideological battle, off‑topicness of most politics, and preference for no thread over a “shitty” one.
• They acknowledge polarization and say they try to keep HN a relatively good place for contentious topics, inviting users to report unfair flagging.
• There is debate about potential improvements: trust‑tiered flagging, public flags, mandatory reason fields, killfiles/ignore lists, LLM assistance, and possibly open‑sourcing more of the code, though concerns about bureaucracy and abuse are raised.

HN culture and evolution

• Long‑time users reminisce about earlier eras (framework wars, startup/business focus) and note shifts toward more general politics, jadedness about tech, and less discussion of “soft” topics (org design, UX).
• Some feel HN is converging toward a large tech subreddit; others insist the tone and civility remain distinctly better than most of the web.
• There’s brief discussion about YC ownership vs spinning HN out as a nonprofit; opinions diverge on whether that would help or harm its current character.