"The Hacker News ranking algorithm does not penalize stories that address social issues."
And then explained the observed effects as being from flags and vote ring detection.
People flag stories that address social issues, thus, the ranking algorithm is penalizing stories that address social issues. That (the collective) you did not specifically intend this makes a nice case study in unintended consequences and/or the collision of technology and humanity, but doesn't change the point being made.
By your logic, the software must also be biased against the things users downvote, since after all the code records the vote.
Of course the algorithm penalizes (most) stories that users flag. But it has no knowledge of what those stories are about. If some topics get flagged more than others, that is a function not of the algorithm but of the inputs users give it. This seems so obvious that I fear this dispute is purely definitional.
Does it help if we change the word "algorithm" to "system"?
Stories entering the HN system on certain subjects are more likely to be penalized by that system. Humans are an integral part of HN. HN would neither function nor exist without them. You cannot simply ignore them and pronounce the system unbiased.
Does that make more sense to you?
This is really surprising to me. I usually disagree with you on, well, everything, but you have not previously seemed like someone who suffers from this particular technologist disease of utterly missing the big picture because someone used a word that you define narrowly in a broader way.
> There's nothing wrong in making it clear that the code itself does not target social issues.
I agree, and I suppose if you choose to read my comment completely free of the context of the rest of the thread, my attitude might not make sense. But when you realize he had also said to 'somehow' that he "thought that was the main point of the article?", it's obvious he was missing the forest for the trees.
I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd like to point out something specific you think I've misunderstood, I'm listening. If you just want to engage in content-free sarcasm, I'm uninterested.
You're here calling @"dang" disingenuous when he has posted nothing but straightforward explanations of what inputs the HN ranking algorithm uses. Then you make a reply laced with the pretense that he doesn't get what you are saying, or are trying to say.
Really he's (I'm just inferring here, because it's soooo obvious) 100% clued in to your conversational gambits.
"The Hacker News ranking algorithm does not penalize stories that address social issues."
And then explained the observed effects as being from flags and vote ring detection.
People flag stories that address social issues, thus, the ranking algorithm is penalizing stories that address social issues. That (the collective) you did not specifically intend this makes a nice case study in unintended consequences and/or the collision of technology and humanity, but doesn't change the point being made.