It looks like about half of the submissions on /newest are about Bill and Melinda Gates divorcing. All of the submissions are flagged/dead. Why is this? I'm not looking to discuss the substance of the articles in this post — just trying to understand how the divorce of one of the biggest names in tech is not allowed on HN.
By contrast, there are many non-flagged/dead articles about Jeff Bezos' divorce.
For the obvious reason: the community is divided on whether it's on topic, so some users keep submitting the stories and other users keep flagging them.
I don't know that there's much here that's intellectually interesting. This is probably one of those moments where HN can distinguish itself by not paying attention to a story.
Regarding priors, the argument "$X1 got attention so why shouldn't $X2" doesn't work on HN, because there's a power-law dropoff in interestingness along any predictable sequence. So if Jeff and MacKenzie got a lot of attention, that's actually a reason why Bill and Melinda wouldn't.
I appreciate that this post was unflagged, after having been flagged. But it appears not to be listed on the front page anymore, or even on /ask. Is that on purpose? If something is not flagged and is popular, what would the reason be for hiding it?
People are not discussing the underlying article here — it is just a meta-discussion about what is allowed to be discussed on HN. It's a little surprising that this is being suppressed (either by community members or mods).
I dunno, it seems like those that deem it purely personal and therefore uninteresting fail to appreciate the broader impact this can have. This kind of announcement isn’t for individual nobodies interested in gossip, it was an even-handed announcement designed to calm global markets, healthcare companies, and developing countries. The Gates Foundation has issued over 55 billion dollars in grants itself, and that doesn’t even cover all the other knock on effects. Not to mention the countless lives that have been saved by their direct help. This isn’t just gossip. But I realize that my thoughts have more to do with the substance/impact of the story, and you are doing a great job of explaining why the community has repeatedly flagged it. Thanks for the explanation.
While I agree it's probably uninteresting intellectually, it does have potential to be interesting emotionally. Not a lot of opportunities for HN to discuss topics such as divorce.
I get wanting to keep HN from old-fashioned vulgarity and gossip, but I can't imagine finding it less-than-intellectually-interesting.
It's an improbably clean example of the conflict between modern and traditional religious views of marriage and money, and whether wanting divorce to be less traumatic can actually make it less traumatic. The symbolism is off the charts.
[Churches] all regard divorce as something like cutting up a body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment.
What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else.
I think leaving one thread up, such as this one, would help the community discuss this story for a short time and move on. Instead half the new stories are this story at the moment.
Given the Gateses' roles in the tech world, venture funding, philanthropy, and Big Problems (scroll through BG's Twitter feed for numerous recent examples), including malaria, fresh water, sanitation, COVID-19, nuclear power, carbon emissions, global warming, disinformation, and more, the adjacency to numerous topics highly relevant to HN are high.
I say this as a very long-time critic of Microsoft and Gates, including on recent issues (patents as applied to vaccines).
Reader flags are a useful indicator, but can still reflect a minority quashing of a discussion that seems to badly want to happen.
Flagging also prevents tools such as Algolia from returning results of those discussions. That's sometimes merited, but not, I'd argue, in this case.
I've seen you in threads defending the relevance of submissions. You even recently replied to me saying that: "That pattern still happens. At least I hope it does; we want HN to have weird articles." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26814566
Maybe now is a good time to give the community the benefit of the doubt?
That one was mine, from the original tweet about 5 seconds after it was posted. I was perplexed that it was flagged given the impact the news will have on a variety of tech issues.
I'm starting to wonder what's actually going on here. So many posts about the same subject from almost every mainstream source imaginable. But they're all getting flagged and killed. I understand why all of those submissions are getting this treatment, but why are so many accounts still trying to post this news? Do they not see the new queue? Are they bots?
If someone doesn't have showdead turned on, they wouldn't see all the dead posts on /newest. They would just see that it's not on the front page and think that no one had yet posted it. This would be an increasingly unlikely explanation as time goes on, but with breaking news it's possible to be the first.
Part of it has to be for easy karma points. A lot of these headlines are specially crafted to arouse emotional responses from their readers especially if they are the "TV after work" kind of people.
My personal opinion is I wouldn't want HN to turn into a mainstream news discussion board. It's not only pretty boring, but will also eventually attract other people interested only in that and the good stuff will drown.
People who are flagging it probably consider the articles insufficiently deep for HN. Most of the significant details won't be known for a while. Not to say the initial articles on the Bezos' divorce were deep.
That's true. I would still say that there is something of interest to discuss here, which is the trend (if n=2 can be a trend) of ultra-wealthy tech moguls getting divorced after being married for decades. These are two of the five richest couples in the world, and they were both married before being ultra-wealthy.
Many people envy them for their wealth, power, access, health, etc. But apparently having all of these things does not secure marital bliss. And perhaps having access to everything under the sun actually makes marital happiness and security harder to come by.
This raises the question: if this is true for the wealthiest people, is it also true for 'mere' hundred-millionaires or millionaires? What are the actual impacts of achieving high levels of wealth, and should we actually be happier having less money/power because it means that we are more likely to have better relationships?
This is very relevant. Many of us work in tech, are married, and know of this couple., just for starters.
It's so very sad every time there is controversial topics, out come the bot armies and flag/down vote them into oblivion. How can HN have such strong. encroaching censorship?
There doesn't even seem to be many people disagreeing that this is very much on topic.
Bill Gates famously listed pros and cons of getting married on a white board so the process of getting divorced is probably just as intellectual. They are still going to work together on their foundation work so they appear to be avoiding a messy emotional split. It may just be a tax strategy who knows.
Maybe because Bill started microsoft almost 20 years before they got married. So Melinda may have signed a prenup, and might not get as large a split as mckenzie even if she didn’t.
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data."
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
I don't know that there's much here that's intellectually interesting. This is probably one of those moments where HN can distinguish itself by not paying attention to a story.
Regarding priors, the argument "$X1 got attention so why shouldn't $X2" doesn't work on HN, because there's a power-law dropoff in interestingness along any predictable sequence. So if Jeff and MacKenzie got a lot of attention, that's actually a reason why Bill and Melinda wouldn't.
I'm not really sure that was the case to begin with though—these threads look pretty uninteresting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18868713, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18865291
[+] [-] gnicholas|4 years ago|reply
People are not discussing the underlying article here — it is just a meta-discussion about what is allowed to be discussed on HN. It's a little surprising that this is being suppressed (either by community members or mods).
[+] [-] jscheel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] I-M-S|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Digory|4 years ago|reply
It's an improbably clean example of the conflict between modern and traditional religious views of marriage and money, and whether wanting divorce to be less traumatic can actually make it less traumatic. The symbolism is off the charts.
[Churches] all regard divorce as something like cutting up a body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment.
What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else.
-- CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
[+] [-] cyberlurker|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|4 years ago|reply
I say this as a very long-time critic of Microsoft and Gates, including on recent issues (patents as applied to vaccines).
Reader flags are a useful indicator, but can still reflect a minority quashing of a discussion that seems to badly want to happen.
Flagging also prevents tools such as Algolia from returning results of those discussions. That's sometimes merited, but not, I'd argue, in this case.
[+] [-] purplecats|4 years ago|reply
brilliant quote. is there a name for this, or did you just make it up on the spot?
[+] [-] hindsightbias|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|4 years ago|reply
Maybe now is a good time to give the community the benefit of the doubt?
[+] [-] ikerdanzel|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ulfw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jensgk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lox|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnicholas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slater|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bombcar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marto1|4 years ago|reply
My personal opinion is I wouldn't want HN to turn into a mainstream news discussion board. It's not only pretty boring, but will also eventually attract other people interested only in that and the good stuff will drown.
[+] [-] ErikVandeWater|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnicholas|4 years ago|reply
Many people envy them for their wealth, power, access, health, etc. But apparently having all of these things does not secure marital bliss. And perhaps having access to everything under the sun actually makes marital happiness and security harder to come by.
This raises the question: if this is true for the wealthiest people, is it also true for 'mere' hundred-millionaires or millionaires? What are the actual impacts of achieving high levels of wealth, and should we actually be happier having less money/power because it means that we are more likely to have better relationships?
[+] [-] boatsie|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sys_64738|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mandatum|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwitaway12|4 years ago|reply
It's so very sad every time there is controversial topics, out come the bot armies and flag/down vote them into oblivion. How can HN have such strong. encroaching censorship?
There doesn't even seem to be many people disagreeing that this is very much on topic.
[+] [-] dave333|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naveen99|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purplecats|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rvz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supernikita|4 years ago|reply
In the same vein, HN has had very little postings on COVID. THANK YOU !!!!
[+] [-] CarelessExpert|4 years ago|reply
Just because it's about Gates doesn't mean it's interesting or relevant for this site.
[+] [-] yamellasmallela|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jitbit|4 years ago|reply
BUT when I got to the bottom of it (possibly the reason for divorce is to evade the new Biden's tax) - it is actually quite interesting.
[+] [-] pcdoodle|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data."