Hacker News

points by hsuduebc2 14 hours ago | 0 comments

Can you be more specific? This is heavy moderated environment and I would say it's one of the most pleasurable places on public internet to be.

[–] ballmerpoint 14 hours ago

It’s not heavily moderated. This is the usual link dang/tomhow give when they explain why their moderation is necessarily inconsistent:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

This is not a criticism of their moderation style, this is simply reporting how they describe it.

[–] sejje 13 hours ago

It's largely self-moderating

[–] SecretDreams 13 hours ago

> it's one of the most pleasurable places on public internet to be

I think we have different definitions of pleasure.

This is a relatively dry place for any kind of conversation other than hyper logic conversation devoid of empathy or humour.

On certain tech topics, it can be very informative. On anything where there is a conflict between the topic and how the base makes money, there's a lot of down voting and sad rhetoric. As a result, you rarely get to discuss the harms of AI or certain oligarchs, e.g. musk, zuck, bezos, Russia, Israel.

This is a place mostly for reinforcing your own beliefs, rather than finding new ones, unless it's around a very mild topic.

[–] hsuduebc2 10 hours ago

I understand. As you said, it's a rather dry, mostly technical place, and that's exactly what I like about it. I appreciate that it's largely free from the suffering, injustices, and ridiculous political debates that dominate so much of the world around us.

I despise these people as much as any other decent human being should, but unfortunately, they're everywhere. Just not so much here.

[–] SecretDreams 2 hours ago

> Just not so much here.

They're here, too. Just quiet about their beliefs so they can talk about their passions. I'm mixed on this because we're giving a subset of bad people a safe space to talk about their not-bad parts, which is adjacent to giving them a pass. I don't know how to reconcile this because I'm also not the thought police.

In some ways, I wish everyone wore the basic foundations of their heart on their sleeve so I could at least filter out the evil from my life more readily and try to make space for some people with bad ideas, but a willingness to change.

[–] MomsAVoxell 14 hours ago

Try to criticize the US' war machine as it relates to the US' tech industry, for example. You will incur the wrath of a thousand HN fascists.

Compare the actual human rights records of the Western sphere (war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of human rights at massive scale) with those of the nations we are being taught are inferior: same effect.

Or for any of us who were around for the Snowden/Assange chapter of HN, who supported the effort to expose the US' heinous crimes - there are still massive sections of western culture who are fundamentalist in their superiority. You can find them in the downvoted and dead-flagged comments section.

[–] pixelready 13 hours ago

This works the same way irl too. The US is one of the most heavily propagandized populations in history. You have to be talking to a very progressive, very politically savvy group to not constantly run into the usual knee jerk canned responses the second you bring up any criticism of military spending, foreign policy, or the panopticon. Probing of those responses in family or social settings for actual justification shows there’s no first principle reasoning behind them, just a vague unease about discussing the topics, like they’re sacrilege.

[–] MomsAVoxell 13 hours ago

Yes, the frothy-mouthed ideation of the US cultural identity is just as frustrating to have to contend with as any other ideology. I've met great Iranian folks and great American folks, and great Russians too - and what they all have in common is the ability to reflect on the limits of their own cultures.

[–] 0xDEAFBEAD 11 hours ago

>The US is one of the most heavily propagandized populations in history.

I see this statement repeated often with no supporting evidence. Seems a little ironic!

Is this claim falsifiable?

Would you be able to name the 2nd or 3rd most propagandized populations, in your view? Do you know anything about propaganda in e.g. the USSR or North Korea?

"Historian Sergo Mikoyan claimed that decades prior to the early 1960s, offices and stores had to submit papers with examples of their typewriters' typeface to local KGB branches so that any printed text could be traced back to the source, to prosecute those who had used the typewriter to produce material deemed illegal. With the introduction of photocopying machines, the KGB's Fifth Directorate and Agitprop Department required individuals to get authorization to use printing office photocopiers to prevent the mass production of unapproved material, though restrictions could be bypassed by bribing employees."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat

That's what an actual heavily-propagandized population looks like. Meanwhile, I can open up any social media app and be greeted by a sea of anti-American slop.

[–] MomsAVoxell 7 hours ago

Just because you get “anti-American slop” doesn’t mean your “pro-American slop” is accurate, nor productive in the context of world affairs.

Americans are among the most propagandized because they are taught theirs is the greatest among all nations from birth, even though it really, really isn’t.

[–] 0xDEAFBEAD 7 hours ago

>Americans are among the most propagandized because they are taught theirs is the greatest among all nations from birth, even though it really, really isn’t.

That's not what it means to be the "most propagandized".

In any case, as an American, I wasn't taught that the US is the "greatest among all nations" from birth.

But I think there are some quite good arguments for this claim nonetheless. Here's a nice detailed article from a historian which lays out the evidence: https://acoup.blog/2022/07/08/collections-is-the-united-stat...

The world has gotten much better while under US hegemony by the way. This has generally been a peaceful and prosperous era by historical standards. https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/The...

Usually the anti-US argument depends on implicitly assuming that:

* All the good things which have happened, would've happened without the US. (Example: The global abolitionist movement started in the US. We'll just assume that would've happened somewhere else.)

* All the bad things which have happened are the direct fault of the US. Other actors are deemed irrelevant/not morally culpable/etc. (The US gets blamed for the actions of people in other countries even if it has a weak to nonexistent relationship with them. Other countries are not generally blamed for the actions of their partners/allies.)

* Bad things that the US successfully prevented or interrupted would somehow have been prevented or interrupted via other means. (Example: Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. We'll just implicitly assume other nation(s) would've taken a lead role in enforcing territorial integrity norms.)

* If the US could've done something, but did not, they are also morally culpable for that omission. (Example: Rwanda genocide.)

It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" type of game. We aren't being judged based on whether our presence makes the world a better place. Rather, if there's any delta between the US and a hypothetical perfect nation, that makes us evil.

Observe how things work: Listen to Europeans complain about the US "playing world police", and also insist that the US should do more to police Eastern Europe. They'll claim the US bears responsibility for the Ukraine War by expanding NATO, and also insist that Ukraine should be armed to the teeth. Naturally, e.g. Poland's push to join NATO is left out: only the US is morally culpable (see second bullet point above).

[–] hypfer 14 hours ago

Not really, because a generic observation cannot be expressed specifically. So that's a weird question to begin with.

It is true that this is heavily moderated and that this is one of the more pleasant spaces, but it is also precisely the moderation style that is being weaponized.

As I said, the toxicity gets hidden in layers and layers of jargon, misdirection and plausible deniability. It gets a veneer of civilty applied, which, somewhat surprisingly, makes it hit even harder, because fighting back is a lot harder, as there is nothing immediately visible to fight back against. It just stings.

It's not just attacking but simultaneously gaslighting. Which has been what the whole internet has been doing since everything became twitter fwiw.

What I said is also not to be understood as "HN bad", because if I would feel that way, I would not be commenting here.

[–] semireg 14 hours ago

There must be some logical fallacy here where, reduced down to human existence, all toxicity is hidden under layers. This is both an ultimately true statement of any suspiciously viewed human interaction and it kind of makes the argument moot.

Reminds me of the recent thread about LLMs controversial take on humanity: we are all terribly cynical, hallucinate importance, and we are all bad/good deep down inside.

[–] mjburgess 14 hours ago

I guess they are saying people argue/comment in bad faith. That they don't really mean what they say, and at least, they say it not to discuss it but for some hidden agenda.

The problem is that outside of "where's my keys? what are we having for lunch?", most language is a symptom of people's agendas. Its a rarefied elite environment that takes things literally, and acts in good faith.

I don't think this is psychopathic, as much as we're apes -- and speaking literally and in good faith about relatively abstract topics takes a considerable amount of training and is, in general, psychologically fragile (ie., its easy to be tilted).

[–] brookst 14 hours ago

If you’re having to look through layers and layers of jargon, misdirection, and plausible deniability to find the toxicity, is it possible there’s a roarscach element to it?

[–] hypfer 14 hours ago

> If you’re having to look through layers and layers of jargon, misdirection, and plausible deniability to find the toxicity, is it possible there’s a roarscach element to it?

Are we going to play "prove me right" here? :D

Come on, this is just a direct personal attack. Go play better. Hide it with a more elaborate construct.

[–] _matthew_ 11 hours ago

So I think I understand what hypfer's getting at, but I personally would never classify this sort of thing even remotely as "trolling".

@hypfer I'm curious, can you understand / identify with at least some of what I'm sharing below?:

A lot of people (likely near 100% of people) have their own internal beliefs about the world and they are largely commenting primarily to validate that belief (I am literally doing it with this comment). Like you often can see both what the person objectively wrote but then also get a feeling for some internal belief that motivated this specific comment.

And naturally, people are emotionally attached to their internal beliefs. And so sometimes comments are less a sharing of ideas and more a factually coded emotional rationalization of their internal beliefs. And when you read a comment like this that goes against one of your own beliefs, it may feel like an attack.

To me the distinction though is the motivation of the person on the other side. My interpretation is that true trolls have a motivation to incite emotions whereas most other people simply are trying to validate their own beliefs, despite potentially doing it in a way that is not emotionally palatable to all perspectives.

Separately, for you (hypfer), do you agree that there could be some amount of "hostile attribution bias" here? I saw this term while searching about this topic and to me it would explain both your perspective of feeling personally attacked and others perspective of feeling like that's actually not at all what's happening.

[–] Arnt 14 hours ago

Sometimes it can be difficult to tell whether someone is a troll "just asking questions" or actually just asking that question. More so on HN than in most of the world, I mean.

[–] retromagik 14 hours ago

Yep that's why the trolls lick that strategy

[–] hypfer 14 hours ago

An interesting realisation there which I believe will shape the upcoming years of discussion spaces is that one can shift the burden of proof there.

Instead of leaving it with the moderation to prove without a doubt that someone is trolling, one can default to assume trolling and demand prove that it is not the case.

As it is impossible to bring up proof for either of those things, the house wins and people make damn sure to quintuple-check if their messaging is decent.

I don't think that that is a good solution, but the status quo was horrible, so maybe the pendulum swinging in another direction for a while might help us discover saner solutions.

[–] cowlevel 13 hours ago

It works until trolls figure out how to prove they are not trolls, even though they are trolls, while non-trolls have difficulty proving it.

[–] cowlevel 14 hours ago

And that ambiguity is precisely something that trolls hide behind.

[–] tacitusarc 14 hours ago

It seems likely this comment is a waste but… no, that clearly was not a personal attack, and going through life treating comments like those as personal attacks seems like a good way to be miserable.

[–] hypfer 14 hours ago

> It seems likely this comment is a waste but… no, that clearly was not a personal attack, and going through life treating comments like those as personal attacks seems like a good way to be miserable.

I'm not sure if can truly let this pass as a more sophisticated construct, but I do appreciate the opener that already invalidates dismissal.

That's a good tactic. Thank you for playing.

I feel great btw :) Thank you for your concern.

[–] kmijyiyxfbklao 13 hours ago

This is completely crazy. How could someone point out that assuming evil intentions is not a good way to interact with people without being accused of doing the same thing as the FBI telling MLK to kill himself?

[–] hypfer 13 hours ago

> This is completely crazy. How could someone point out that assuming evil intentions is not a good way to interact with people without being accused of doing the same thing as the FBI telling MLK to kill himself?

I was genuinely wondering if we would see the end of it, but of course, no.

But I like this, because it's such an obvious strawman and bad faith reinterpration by an account consisting of random jumbled letters.

Thank you. This is background radiation one can live with. Thanks for making things normal again.

[–] regretsresin 14 hours ago

Unlikely. Plenty of anti LGBTQ rhetoric is permissible here by mods, for example.

However, it often uses queer lingo - words that folks might think aren't notable, but queer folks will instantly recognize as an attack.

Refusing to call a gay man's husband a husband, but subsisting in friend or partner. Calling someone biologically male. Etc.

These get deployed quite subtly here, and because none of the words are slurs, they don't get moderated. (Though HN also permits overt slur usage -- search for the r-slur and you'll find plenty of cases.)

[–] cosmic_cheese 14 hours ago

FWIW, it may just be a colossal misconception of my own, but I’d been of the mind that “partner” was in some cases more polite to use because it doesn’t make assumptions about the individuals in question or about the dynamics of the relationship between them. I am not part of the LGBTQ world, however, and am happy to be corrected.

[–] regretsresin 2 minutes ago

There's a difference between the polite use and the impolite use. If someone makes a point to always introduce and discuss their husband, some anti LGBTQ folks will make a point to never say husband. Like, "you don't get to have that word." It's a way of suggesting people aren't married.

The difficulty is that partner is also acceptable and polite, especially when gender or marital status is unknown.

It's subtle, which is exactly the sort of thing this thread is about -- ways to subtly exclude someone while appearing polite to outsiders.

[–] amanaplanacanal 13 hours ago

It can be used both ways, I suppose. I use it for my partner because legal marital status isn't important to me, but for those that had to fight to obtain the basic right to get married I can see why it would be hurtful.

I wonder how much of it is generational? I see something similar in the way second wave feminists rightly hated being called girls, whereas it's not as much of an issue for the younger generations because they didn't have those experiences.