flagging should come with a 50 word minimum explanation.

JKCalhoun 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That would allow the rest of us to know the why.

That would assume good faith. It wasn't flagged in good faith so all you'd get access to is how bad faith actors construct narratives.

▲

JKCalhoun 2 days ago | parent [-]

Bad-faith narrative constructs should at least lay bare their bad faith.

	▲	willis936 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		And require public scrutiny and reputation risking, I agree. Flags are louder than comments yet require no risk. It's a systemic bias against discussion.

▲

newsomix9xl 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Or a drop down of appropriate flagging reasons.

▲

lioeters 2 days ago | parent [-]

Some of the juiciest discussions on this forum recently are the perma-flagged posts with active comments and high upvotes. The moderation bias (by supposed "crowd" or not) is obvious, there are clear tendencies of suppressed topics. It's like the dark side of the front page.

	▲	newsomix9xl a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm not interested in promoting or exploring juicy discussions. I'm just interested in some transparency: when I select "flag" I want to say why: a) this isn't a tech story b) this story is just self-serving advertising c) this story appears to have gamed itself to the front page d) this story is just a sign up page (I consider that misleading). e) the story doesn't match the headline, etc. If I see a story flagged, I'd like to know why (headline doesn't match, self-promotion, etc).
	▲	maxipad7 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]