Congratulations on completely ignoring what I said.

In perhaps clearer terms: HN is not a monolith. There are a variety of opinions here and intense disagreement. It’s very difficult to claim that any particular position is supported by a majority of users, given the arguments that erupt on nearly every topic.

(Or perhaps you are claiming that 100% of a site’s users are responsible for every opinion that is aired on a site, even if they disagree with it.)

▲

bigyabai 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I never claimed that the majority of HN shared that opinion, or that they should. You manifested both of those ideas from wholecloth.

The common opinion is still harmful, and it's enabled the harms to scale to the point we see them today. For an analog in modern politics, look at minority opinions like "think of the children" or "unnamed terrorist threat" and their role in manufacturing consent for tyranny.

▲

iamnothere 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's downright appalling that HN entertained these arguments against sideloading.

> Oppression, censorship and surveillance are HN's just deserts.

What is this if not an implication that a majority, or all, of HN users share this opinion and are thus responsible/deserving of the fallout?

▲

bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A statement of fact? We share a common fate, switching to Linux or protesting Meta doesn't exempt you from the rule of law.

Edit: Oppression, censorship and surveillance are not a hypothetical consequence. The "justness" might be debatable, but the existence of it is objective.

	▲	iamnothere 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s actually not a statement of fact, “just desserts” (implying that one is deserving of punishment or suffering) is a moral argument. Moral arguments are not statements of fact, although this does not make them necessarily invalid.