Hacker News Reader

Comment by PartiallyTyped | Hacker News Reader

meta: There's a lot of irony when HN users complain about censorship in one of the most censored spaces of the internet.

View on HN

Not really. Censorship on a legal/state-wide level is different from a single community having constraints or standards - nothing prevents certain types of discussion that aren't allowed here from happening somewhere else.

Also, taking casual shots at HN rules or moderation isn't so much contrarian or anti-censorship as being disrespectful of the community and its expectations - downvotes shouldn't be surprising in such a case.

It should be fairly obvious that I am not taking a jab at Dang, I am taking a jab at "people" who flag or downvote me as a form of censorship and stop conversations mid track because they are interested in pushing a certain narrative.

I chose to submit to this censorship, because HN is actually not very censored at all. The very fact that we're having this discussion right now proves that HN takes a light touch, but regardless: HN is not a government, nor a monopoly, so you can always go elsewhere.

The fact that people get rate-limited and conversations stop mid-track, in the process preventing dissenting opinions from propagating is censorship. All of that is happening not because of Dang and mods, but because it's trivial to use bots and whatnot to push a certain narrative.

I merely pointed at the irony of the situation and said the quiet part out loud, effectively calling the hypocrites out :)

While you're right, I'd say a good dictator is better than a good "council". Dang (and whoever helps him, if anyone) does a good job of keeping meaningful debate alive here, and shunning useless commentary and unwarranted hate.

But yeah, it is censorship.

Ever wonder why a post is stuck at the bottom of the front page or falls off so quickly? There are stealth censorship controls built into the platform to adjust or remove discussions they do not want here, often times, discussions about censorship. Bias is present in moderation most places you go.

Where can genuine discussion be had in the digital age?

We are having genuine discussion, it's just that certain people are trigger happy with flagging anything that goes against a certain narrative.

I have had multiple instances where my account was flagged because I expressed a contrarian view, and I couldn't actually participate because I was rate-limited.

No censorship also does not mean "genuine", 4chan is an example of this; virtually everything sans CSAM is "allowed", but genuine discussions are not happening because of trolls.

Ultimately, you will most likely not have a genuine discussion online, and irl you need a particular group of people who are capable of entertaining differing opinions.

In the span it took me to write this comment, GP received -3 and two other comments -4 total, proving the point.

I tried to respond to sibling chain, and to none's surprise, I have been rate-limited again and I am effectively banned from discussing anything in this thread :).

Simply statistics will tell you that bots and incentivized actors even exist in this thread. Agenda based sentiment analysis for voting and flagging can indeed be done by computers. Can we identify it? No, but it does exist in most places we go to in this digital landscape.

Communities become echo chambers as malicious means are used to crush opinions that dissent from the pushed narrative. Who wants to engage in a hostile environment? Most don't and will simply isolate or try to find another community.

Choose a *chan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com