> Offtopic. I have a concern that this forum is removing stories that have negative connotation on AI.

The first example was flagged by users. It fits the pattern of other political clickbait stories. The top comment is calling out problems with it. This type of story pops up and gets flagged all the time on different topics.

Some people assume a conspiracy or moderation misbehavior, but when most of the comments in the thread are people calling out obvious problems with the article it leads to a lot of users clicking the flag button. Articles with poor logic or tortured claims don't last long here.

The second one is an Ask HN on a contentious topic with more comments than upvotes. There’s an automatic filter on this website designed to detect flame wars and I suspect it down ranks threads that aren’t getting many upvotes but are attracting a lot of comments. Happens to many Ask HN threads.

The third one doesn't even strike me as anti-AI. I don't know why you included it as an example of an anti-AI agenda because it's still about a future where everyone is using AI. It has other problems though because it's willfully ignoring the fact that inference is getting cheaper at a fast rate. It probably got dropped from the front page because the ratio of comments to upvotes was bad, like the other story.

There isn’t a conspiracy theory to be found in these examples. This is just what happens to tired topics on this site.

Anti-AI topics are on the front page all the time. I think that story you tried to post was just a badly written anger bait piece, it got called out in the comments, and people started flagging it.

▲

GPerson 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

In my opinion anthropic doing product feature reveals is a tired topic but it hits the front page every day. This website has a clear pro-AI bias (which is fine).

▲

throw1234567891 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The first example was flagged by users. It fits the pattern of other political clickbait stories.

That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here, as it is too easy to downvote.

▲

nonethewiser an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>That’s what they mean. It’s too easy to flag something here

He didn’t say that at all. He said there was bias towards removing negative AI posts. He showed no knowledge of the flagging system and that it could just be working as intended.

▲

hungryhobbit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

... if you post downvotable stuff. Maybe post less crap and more high quality thoughtful content?

▲

throw1234567891 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem isn’t low quality content, that gets filtered out mostly before it reaches the front page. The problem are people who downvote based on emotional trigger, not argument. And people ganging up. Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes? Seems like an organised group.

▲

NewsaHackO 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That seems more like a conspiracy theory. I think the group of people who 1) view this website and 2) click on a thread about certain topics are a heavily conditioned (and therefore more homogenized) group; if you say something that is controversial/low quality, it is likely going to get downvoted by multiple people in that group.

	▲	rustystump 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Controversial/low quality are both subjective and i am not a fan of putting controversial next to low quality. I do agree I dont think there is any larger bias other than a homogeneous group but it does question if such a group will up/down vote similar homogeneous content producing overall lower quality discussion and content.

▲

hamburglar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Never had a case where suddenly within a minute you get 4, 5 downvotes?

Well, no, I never have, but if I did, my first reaction would be to think I struck a nerve and had a bunch of people react, not that there was a conspiracy.

▲

sat15243 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All flagged stories are flagged by users that are part of an interest group. unric.org is political clickbait? Give me a break, Mr. "nothing to see here".

▲

chrisweekly 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "All flagged stories are flagged by users that are part of an interest group."

False. I occasionally flag items, never as part of nor acting on behalf of any particular interest group.

	▲	Aurornis 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s the classic “everyone who disagrees with me is a bot or a shill”.

▲

fasterik 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What "interest group" are you referring to, and how do you know that it's not individual users with a legitimate good faith disagreement?

▲

Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> All flagged stories are flagged by users that are part of an interest group.

Read the comments. People were actually reading the topic and calling it out. This gets topics flagged.

It’s not coordinated interest groups conspiring to remove stories.

> Give me a break, Mr. "nothing to see here".

Okay, Mr. “I just created an alt account for this comment”