| |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Techno-feudalism is an Ayn-Rand objectivists wet dream, after all. There's profit in oppression. | |
| ▲ | my-next-account 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it's typically quite obvious, or maybe I haven't seen the psycopaths. However, SWEs can be real dick heads. Just made me think of this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_5uVdy5YmA Uploaded 16 years ago... I can't believe that a video I thought was so hilarious back then is dating me so hard. | | | |
| ▲ | hsuduebc2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | hypfer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | mjburgess 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | Arnt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep that's why the trolls lick that strategy | | |
| ▲ | hypfer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | hypfer an hour ago | parent [-] | | I suspect that the energy required scales exponentially though, and, eventually, it might just become less of a hassle to just behave. That and the fact that each increase in difficulty filters out people that do not have the capability to pass it. So the pool shrinks every time. Though, valid counterpoint: Eventually prefabs emerge and get shared. But then we innovate once more. We always did. We always will | | |
| ▲ | cowlevel an hour ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't scale exponentially. Another user already gave the example of someone persistently using "he/she", talking about gay marriages as "partners" while straight ones are "husbands" and "wives", etc. How much effort do you think it takes to perform that versus to moderate it? | | |
| ▲ | hypfer an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm not quite sure what your point is tbh. Do not even try? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cowlevel 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And that ambiguity is precisely something that trolls hide behind. |
| |
| ▲ | tacitusarc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | regretsresin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
