| ▲ | nomilk 9 hours ago |
| I hope for the good of mankind, all sides of politics unite against deplatforming and oppressing opposing viewpoints. It's sad that certain topics (anti-ICE, Epstein) neutered on a social media platform, but this went on for years when the politics were reversed. Let everyone have their say, I say. |
|
| ▲ | conception 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| But the thing is people aren’t having “their say”. Social media companies are amplifying voices and viewpoints. They are not acting as “common carriers” letting quality sift to the top. It is curated and crafted. |
| |
| ▲ | tartoran 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Now they're thumbing down the scale for censorship. | |
| ▲ | kortilla 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Letting quality sift to the top” implies that there is a way for this to happen without curation. Pure user vote driven things like Reddit are a failure (echo chambers, emotional appeals, bot rings, etc). So I’m curious what you think would let that happen? Even HN is heavily moderated to maintain topics. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | infecto 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am not sure why this was flagged but I don’t think it’s wrong. I am not sure if it’s a uniquely American thing but the internet has caused an unfortunate case of brigading for almost anything. I like to think I sit fairly middle in a lot of American topics I lean left on some items, taxes, healthcare, free school lunches and right on others but I remember how easy it was a number of years ago to be labeled a racist. You really cannot have an opinion about much these days without someone labeling you something unfavorably. It’s unfortunate. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ironically, "labelling" someone else is an act of free speech as much as anything else. | | |
| ▲ | infecto 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think it’s ironic and my point was not the act of labeling itself but more of how America has become a brigading culture. Free speech should be protected, even for things that we know are wrong but we have this decay of the internet and culture where you are either with someone or against them. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | But that's my point: what you call "brigading" is other people using their free speech in a way you don't like. | | |
| ▲ | infecto 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think we are talking past each other a bit. I am not objecting to people expressing disagreement or labeling as an abstract exercise of free speech. I am pointing to a pattern that has become common online where disagreement quickly turns into coordinated pile-ons, identity assignment, and social signaling rather than substantive engagement with the argument itself. Free speech protects the right to do that, but it does not mean the behavior is healthy or productive. When discourse collapses into binary alignment where nuance is treated as hostility, it discourages honest participation and pushes people toward silence or extremes. So yes, others are exercising free speech. My concern is about the cultural outcome of how that speech is increasingly used, not whether it is permitted. Increasingly society in America is either you are with us or not and at least for me my view of the world is more nuanced and day to day. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I am pointing to a pattern that has become common online where disagreement quickly turns into coordinated pile-ons, identity assignment, and social signaling rather than substantive engagement with the argument itself. It's easy to fall prey to the fallacy that disagreement with you means the disagreers are failing to engage substantively to the topic, and are simply "social signaling". It's easy to dismiss many people disagreeing with you as a "coordinated pile on". In my experience, these accusations are usually a result of the "piled on"'s failure to understand and consider the others' perspective, and their unwillingness to change their mind. Not to say that they must understand and consider others' perspectives, or that they must be willing to change their mind either! But engaging with a society means facing social pressure to conform with social norms. There's always not engaging with society in any meaningful way, as an option. | | |
| ▲ | infecto 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree those are real failure modes, and I am not denying they happen. People absolutely misread disagreement as bad faith, or assume coordination where there is none, especially when emotions are involved. Where I differ is that I do not think this is only an individual perception problem. There are structural incentives online that reward signaling, amplification, and rapid norm enforcement over slower, substantive engagement. That does not require explicit coordination to function like a pile on, and it does not require bad intent from participants. Social pressure and norm enforcement are inevitable in any society, as you note. My concern is about degree and speed. When the dominant response to a nonconforming view is immediate identity assignment or moral framing rather than argument, the space for persuasion narrows quickly. At that point, engagement becomes less about exchanging ideas and more about sorting people. Opting out is always an option, but that feels like conceding that meaningful public discourse online is no longer worth defending. I am not convinced that is a good outcome either. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There are structural incentives online that reward signaling, amplification Those same structural incentives reward people organizing around a topic about which they're genuinely both passionate and informed. So how are you determining the difference? > and rapid norm enforcement over slower, substantive engagement Different people have different opinions over whether violation of norms should be tolerated, and how quickly. Note that this is different from tolerating disagreement, but some disagreement is so heinous as to violate norms in and of itself (e.g. a nazi salute). > That does not require explicit coordination to function like a pile on, and it does not require bad intent from participants. Sure, but a "pile on", which I'll refer to by the more impartial term "many people disagreeing with a person or their take" or "many people validly expressing that a person has violated norms" is totally okay and valid in a society. The speed and degree of that enforcement is itself a social norm, and if it seems people prefer a high speed and high degree, then that is the norm. I could speculate why that has become the norm, but I'll just generalize that there is a lot of hurt going around, and a lot of callousness to it, and a lot of failures of the traditional ways of addressing it, like shame. | | |
| ▲ | infecto 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do not think there is a clean, mechanical way to distinguish passion and expertise from signaling in the moment, and I am not claiming omniscience there. My point is about aggregate behavior and incentives, not adjudicating individual intent. Systems that reward visibility, speed, and alignment will naturally select for responses that optimize for those traits, regardless of whether participants are sincere, informed, or acting in good faith. On norms, I agree there are cases where the content itself is the violation, not merely a disagreement. Extreme examples make that clear. Where it becomes tricky is that the boundary of what counts as norm violating has expanded and become more fluid, while the enforcement mechanisms have become faster and more punitive. That combination raises the risk of false positives and discourages exploratory or imperfect reasoning, even when the underlying intent is not malicious. I also agree that many people disagreeing is not inherently a problem. What I am pushing back on is the framing that this is always just neutral preference aggregation. When enforcement becomes immediate, public, and identity focused, it changes the cost structure of participation. The fact that a norm exists does not automatically mean it is optimal for discourse, only that it is currently dominant. Your last point about hurt and callousness is important. I suspect that is part of the explanation. But if widespread hurt leads us to default to faster and harsher sorting rather than engagement, it seems reasonable to ask whether that tradeoff is actually helping us understand each other better, or just making the lines more rigid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Labelling" is different than censorship though, no? | | |
| ▲ | infecto 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it’s all part of the same culture of brigading. My comment was more an extension of thought to the parents that America has gone down a hole where dialogue no longer exists. |
| |
| ▲ | lyu07282 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > but I remember how easy it was a number of years ago to be labeled a racist Centrist my ass | | |
| ▲ | infecto 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am going to vouch for this comment because this is a great example of what I was describing. People jump to whatever conclusion they want and you are either with them or without. It’s sad what has come to be in society. | | |
| ▲ | dmit 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | People jump to the conclusion because a lot of the time they've had this exact argument already, and they know how it tends to end. Proclaiming oneself a centrist might seem like a noble, moderate position. But in 2026, with the Overton window basically being shifted outside the frame? | | |
| ▲ | infecto 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | What argument are we having? I see someone struggling to hold their own words steady, and you claiming that I am proclaiming something when I only mentioned it because of this exact problem. I do not really think of myself as left or right within the current American political system. I do not follow either political party, and my opinions often zig zag across existing party lines. If anything, maybe “centrist” is the wrong or overly loaded word. I do not follow any particular political movement in America. The point still stands brigading is a massive problem in America. | | |
| ▲ | dmit 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not having an argument. I was just trying to explain that "I'm not left or right" sounds like "I am perfectly fine with how things are right now" to the people who think the current state of things is an absolute disaster. | | |
| ▲ | infecto 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > they've had this exact argument Maybe it’s not obvious but you compared the thread to an argument. I see no argument. Just a boneheaded reply from someone which was a great example of exactly what I was describing. Your follow up is pretty on point too, somehow we go from the topic of brigading to maybe me being ok with the current state of things. This is a really great example of the problem I was describing. Thank you. |
| |
| ▲ | nomdep 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He is accusing you of not beign "leftist enough", which he regards the same as beign a traitor to the "good" side | | |
| ▲ | dmit 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do I need to be present for this thread, or are you capable of projecting the rest all on your own? | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bakies 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can't have all side of politics unite when one side is doing that thing you want to unite against. |
|
| ▲ | NickC25 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't know. I think that over the years, bad faith actors in the world of geopolitics have taken advantage of this in a very nefarious way in order to sow chaos, bad-faith/purposefully-inaccurate "talking points" and capture the hearts and minds of the ignorant, the stupid, and the willfully delusional masses who are desperate to cling to a conspiracy if it fits their worldview which is in turn reinforced by said bad actors. Is it a potentially unconstitutional slippery slope? yes, absolutely.
Is it something we need to tackle as adults and citizens? yes, absolutely.
Should the desires of SV tech bro billionaires have any input in those discussions? no, absolutely not. |
| |
| ▲ | rtp4me 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To me, the media is/are nothing more than drug sellers at this point. They have their weapon "of truth" sold to the very people you listed above. I do my absolute best to not consume any media because I know it is twisted and often wrong (eg. AI generated content). The best I can do is simply not participate in their war. Reddit, TikTok, X, etc are definitely supplying heavy drugs to anyone who wants to be hooked. At some point, we definitely need a cooling-off period where people from both sides refrain from inciting anger from the masses. | |
| ▲ | cindyllm 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | lyu07282 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah except when it comes to what this was really about, in which case "all sides" happily go along with it. As it turns out censorship to protect our precious zionist ethnostate is something everybody agrees with. |
|
| ▲ | felixgallo 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| the right wing furor about deplatforming and media bias was always just a bad faith rhetorical tactic. When Musk bought Twitter, it became clear that there was no conspiratorial algorithmic suppression -- in fact, the code showed that the only thumb on the scales was to promote Musk's own account. The right wing owned essentially all the media before, and within the last few years they also own Twitter, Facebook, The Washington Post, TikTok, Paramount, CBS, and are trying to grab CNN. There isn't an all-sides argument here; there's one side in almost total control of the entire discourse, whining about being victims, and promotingly increasingly insane viewpoints. |
| |
| ▲ | nomdep 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "it became clear that there was no conspiratorial algorithmic suppression". Yes, the Twitter files showed that the suppression was done mostly by humans. | | | |
| ▲ | NickC25 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not to mention, the largest media distributors / syndicates were parroting increasingly right-wing talking points instead of staying neutral or simply presenting the facts and letting the viewer come to their own conclusions. there is no left-wing media machine that even comes within a billion light years of the strength of the right-wing machine. Effectively, the entire spectrum is owned by hard-right billionaires. Media has fallen victim to the need for continuous profits (because they have been targeted over and over by bad faith right wing actors) and the journalistic integrity of the 4th estate has effectively been weaponized by the people who need to be named and shamed. |
|
|
| ▲ | direwolf20 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | nomilk 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | More nuanced laws can prevent such behaviour without impacting free expression. For example, Public Nuisance laws. That way the content itself isn't legislated again, just the appropriateness of the time and place, and the society isn't prevented from having fictional works, history texts, art containing the banned topic. | |
| ▲ | debo_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thank you, Godwin. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Godwin's law is not a useful heuristic, and Godwin himself regrets it. Every universal principle should have its extreme cases tested. If you claim it should be fine to say anything at all, then you have to test that against the limits like HH, or North Korean propaganda, or death threats, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | gadflyinyoureye 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes. Now you don't know who to watch. Forcing conversations under ground just requires a larger intelligence network. Let them say things on Reddit and the like to simply keep track using simple tools. | | | |
| ▲ | njhnjh 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
