And just to clarify, if enough people flag submissions, but not enough people, then it can get buried but not get the "flagged" tag? Because very few of the DF posts actually seem to get that tag.
But maybe even some light flagging, plus high engagement-to-view ratio (esp. if engagements go many levels deep fast), may cause some "unwanted" content to be buried.
Yeah, I can only speculate on that one. It was a well-written, high-level epiphany, that, as you mentioned on the podcast, was purely editorial. It was one of my favorite DF posts, but I don't think everybody got it.
I'm a fan of both HN and DF. If I assume my worldview is accurate, that both are above-board, then the only explanation I have left is flamewar detection. Your links get too many comments—plus some flags sprinkled in there—too fast relative to upvotes. So, your posts get too much engagement.
There is a twisted logic to that algo, esp. for a "News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters"-flavored attitude, and esp. for a site that's trying to be as efficiently managed as possible.
Plus, Scott Alexander noted recently a decline in Substack due to deboosting on X, but also that just too many people are now Substacking, many of whom are good, and a lot who are just clones. And on the Dithering about "Rotten", you and Ben both concur that it feels like a while since either of you went viral. So as soon as a solo blogger blows up, the system quickly co-opts that blend of content into other media channels. i.e., Indie generally doesn't last.
Something weird definitely happened in 2015/2016, for sure (maybe the start of the anti-engagement algo). But your blog was also crazy popular between the iPhone's release and Steve Jobs' death. That was probably the most dynamic time in Apple's history (post-Sculley), with plenty of controversy worthy of exacting critique (Antennagate, etc.)
I agree, it's a weird argument! However, if the points you paraphrased are supposed to be the premises, I'm not sure why they're inherently false. Maybe I don't provide ample research behind them. But are they obviously false?
1. Did an explosion of literacy due to the printing press lead to an interest in free speech? Makes sense.
2. Does endless debate / political gridlock lead to an inability to build in San Francisco? Every attempt to provide housing becomes a vicious argument between NIMBYs and YIMBYs. I also have personal experience working both sides of local development issues in Austin, and the challenges are similar to the ones in SF. As you're trying to go about your business in city council, someone will stop the conversation with some objection to an act or policy that would make everybody's lives better except for that one person (so they think), and then nothing gets done, or it requires expensive lobbyists to push through.
3. I don't have an objective backing of my city ranking, but I've socialized this high-density / high-functioning metric for some time now, and anybody who has traveled has agreed with my assessment with Asian cities. Note, two cities I mentioned are not in China: Tokyo and Singapore. I also forgot to mention Taipei, but that belongs on the list too.
4. I don't think free speech will doom the West. And that is not a premise anyways.
However, if there is a takeaway, my hope is that the West takes a deep look at itself as to what works and what doesn't work with its culture, and try to evolve without losing its soul. Barring that, then accept that as Asian cities evolve and support greater populations, the U.S. will be relegated to a minor player role, similar to the U.K. today. I just hope I don't grow old and discover that my beloved America is having its own petulant version of Brexit.
But maybe even some light flagging, plus high engagement-to-view ratio (esp. if engagements go many levels deep fast), may cause some "unwanted" content to be buried.