Make Flagging Activity Public?

Question

In light of this story[0] about cuts to mRNA vaccine funding in favor of live virus vaccine being flagged to death within mere minutes of posting I'm wondering if there would be support for flagging activity being made public?It is my understanding that the HN code-base is pretty much write-only so it's probably a tall ask but I think it would help confidence in the site at this... turbulent time globally, if people could do their own investigation of which accounts are jumping on stories to kill them.This would be useful irrespective of your political slant, e.g. on issues like Israel-Palestine.For the example story there are a few possibilities:- people are sick of 'political' stories and flag them out of tedium- there is a prevailing pro-Trump, anti-science majority of active users on the site- there are active influence campaigns using sock-puppet accounts to hide and prevent discussion of ongoing attacks on scienceThe most likely answer is all-of-the-above. But why should such anti-speech activity as flagging be private? This may already be possible via the API so I'd be interested to learn that if so.[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44961584

eimrine · Accepted Answer

It would be great if HN's rules is not (partly) dictated by law. Some posts ought to be silenced preferably immediately.

incomingpain · Answer

So what if it were public? It's still essentially private because all the usernames are anonymous.
Makes sense to me why that story got flagged.
>- people are sick of 'political' stories and flag them out of tedium
Looking at active page, pretty minimal politics. So they are being flagged, the reasoning is unknown.
>- there is a prevailing pro-Trump, anti-science majority of active users on the site
lol the polar opposite is quite true. Virtually no support for trump on HN. Most of us arent in the USA, and those ive seen who are, are clearly democrats. Us Canadians hate trump pretty much, even the Maple MAGA crowd has disappeared.
>- there are active influence campaigns using sock-puppet accounts to hide and prevent discussion of ongoing attacks on science
tags missing?

krapp · Answer

If the rationales for flagging were made public, it would only create arguments which would dilute the quality of conversation even more. It would not, in any way, change flagging behavior. If anything people would flag more things even harder, just for the opportunity to post their manifestos against the content.

JustExAWS · Answer

I flag submissions even when I agree on the topic. Basically any topic where I can’t see the comments as enhancing someone’s knowledge and will just be politics and whataboutism.
Before the usual retorts come that I can only afford to think that way because I’m not a member of a “disaffected group”, my still living parents dealt with the Jim Crow south and my son who grew up in the suburbs all of his life still got looked at with suspicion walking around in our neighborhood.
But that didn’t mean I wanted to see a dozen post a day about police brutality, BLM, the inequities in the justice system or whatever anti woke BS Trump was talking about today on HN.
What possible good discussion could come out of a post about Palestine vs Israel unless it was a technical “innovation” [sic] that one side or the other was using?

sjs382 · Answer

I keep a few ways to contact me in my HN profile.

I often flag submissions or comments when they go against the rules (sometimes written, sometimes unwritten) of the site.

I'm generally not willing to:

  * engage with someone who's demanding an audience for a post/comment (upset that their post/comment was flagged). 
  * justify these flags to a stranger. 
  * open myself to harassment based on what I flag.

So, if these flags become public, I'll just stop flagging. I'm sure I'm not alone. I consider this a negative outcome of making flags public.