Hacker News Reader

Comment by jccc | Hacker News Reader

I don't particularly like the guy, but is there a campaign of deliberate misinterpretation going on?

Yes, probably a really stupid thing to say, and perhaps wrong for many reasons.

No, he did not say India should have kept Britain as its colonial power, or any of the other incredible interpretations now flying around the Twittersphere.

Jonny Axelsson: Anti-semitism not the opposite of semitism. Now whether anti-colonialism is a thing is another thing. Americans, esp. right-wing, have Humpty Dumpty appoach to redefining words but in context is clear: @pmarca referred to the post-colonial anti-colonial mix of nationalism, socialism, abuse/power that afflicted many ex-colonies

Marc Andreessen: Exactly.

https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697281882401026048

[Please disagree with Andreessen's point, not with my point that he really didn't say take India back to British colonialism but said something else that perhaps is almost as stupid.]

View on HN

There's a case to be made about the good things colonialism brought for countries. Not a great one and you'll get shouted down however.

But this fracas really distracts from the more important issue - "net neutrality" (Colonialism is dead after all, at least early 20th century style..) The Indian government seems quite appropriate in their concerns. This whole 'denying poor people free stuff' is very likely seen as a subterfuge. Maybe 'owning' parts of the net is the new colonialism.

Although I think you may be right in your interpretation how is maintaining net neutrality by India 'anti-colonialist'?

It isn't. But ignoring the NN aspect of this discussion, the sentiment I got from the tweet was that the "anti-colonial" mindset was to drive out foreign influence, both positive and negative. The idea that the tweet was pro-colonial I believe is incorrect.

Once again, Twitter shows us why it shouldn't be used for nuanced conversation.

I have no position on this. Please disagree with Andreessen about that, not with my objection to wild misinterpretation of him.

I have zero qualifications to have an opinion on the question you raise.

Yeah sorry the question wasn't supposed to be directed at you, more rhetorical in nature.

people often claim that they "misspoke" or "my words are being misinterpreted" as a way of attempting to save face when they actually said what they meant.

For better or worse, I suspect a large part of recent developments in India regarding zero-rating services were supported as "let's deal a blow to the big bad corporations affiliated with the western civilization that colonized us! we don't like them!" rather than a matter of intrinsic merit. It's a common motive in a variety of nations.

(edit: in this case, I suspect it might be "for better" and not "for worse" in effect, but I still suspect the ulterior motive.)

The whole movement started with opposition to Airtel Zero (an Indian company) and Flipkart (again, an Indian company). People have lauded Google for respecting net neutrality in Project Loon.

I don't know where this perception of an anti-west sentiments is coming from.

As a policy position, I don't think it is.

However, if you look at a lot of the rhetoric that has been used it is heavily influenced by anti-colonialism. (Don't let this Western company come in and colonize our Internet.) I suspect the debate would have been quite different if it were ex. Flipkart offering Free Basics.

Funny. First the net neutrality activists were accused of being soft on foreign companies: https://twitter.com/_sachinbansal/status/585770383682375680 (This was by Flipkart CEO, Sachin Bansal)

And now they're being called "anti-west".

In case you don't know, the whole movement started as opposition to Airtel Zero and people downvoted en-masse Flipkart's app on Play Store because it was participating in Airtel Zero. Facebook brought attention to itself by a 40m$ ad-campaign, demonizing and slandering the activists AND DDoSing the regulator.

To be honest, I'm not interested enough in this debate to argue over it.

But you can certainly find plenty of people who equated Free Basics with digital colonialism. [1] Whether it is I don't have an opinion on.

Of course, anti-colonialism is not the only reason to support net neutrality (nor do I think it's the best one).

[1] http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/fear-of-facebook-c...

Are we supposed to disagree with his actual point, or with this obvious retcon you've quoted here?

> I don't particularly like the guy, but is there a campaign of deliberate misinterpretation going on?

Yes. We live in a sound bite news era and if you can interpret the sound bite (tweet) in a wholly different way than intended and shout it loud enough, the original truth of the statement doesn't matter. Many of the headlines about political candidates are contradicted by the actual speeches, but SNL, late night, and reporters can make money off their interpretations.

Please [don't] disagree with my point that he really didn't say take India back to British colonialism.

He didn't literally "say" that, but it's (nearly) irrelevant to point that out. The bigger point is that what he indisputably did say was, by itself, utterly idiotic and offensive.

I am not making the point that he didn't literally say what people are choosing to assume he meant. I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him.

And I am making the point that employing this misinterpretation to criticize him undermines the important, substantive reasons to criticize him.

(It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.)

I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him.

But (if you mean this idea that he specifically wants to bring back British colonialism) I don't anyone thinks that he meant that. So it seems like a weird charge to defend him against.

If that's not what you meant (by "the assumption people are making"), please clarify.

(It is somewhat ironic that you make your point by rewriting my words in a way that significantly changes their tone, and likely changes how readers would interpret them.)

Sorry, I was just trying to simplify your text to make it easier to respond to that what seemed to be the core import of what you were saying.

I don't think anyone thinks that he meant that.

The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought. Andreessen's even been forced to say, "To be clear, I am 100% opposed to colonialism, and 100% in favor of independence and freedom, in any country, including India."

https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697488911350652928

Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification if that wasn't exactly what has become a widespread interpretation?

The original title of the Bloomberg article (which has since been rewritten, and is the submitted article for this HN thread) was "Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World," with subheds to the same effect.

The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought.

Without dissecting what Bloomberg may or may not have meant with their temporary headline, it seems you're (mistakenly) assuming that people have been somehow reacting more to Bloomberg's (since retracted) one-line description of what Andreessen said than by the substance he actually did say (and his immediate follow-up remarks, which to say the least, weren't particularly apologetic). Most readers on HN go straight to the source, and don't attach much weight to catchy headlines.

Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification if that wasn't exactly what has become a widespread interpretation?

It's a fairly typical form of ass-covering to categorically "reject" a position one didn't actually make (as a way of deflecting attention from from the somewhat more nuanced, but just the same, boneheaded and disturbing statement that one did, in fact, make).

You'll notice he isn't trying to explain just what he did mean by his initial tweet, right? That's because he knows there's no way he can really salvage himself.

And BTW:

The Internet hate machine on this issue

It's not a "hate machine." Andreessen did say something pretty darn stupid and and offensive (his subsequent and less than entirely convincing attempts to talk his way down from what he said notwithstanding). And is being rightly called out for it.

I've found that the further down the article the actual quote is, the more likely that the writer's interpretation is misleading.

First sentence

>then suggesting the country would have had stronger economic growth if it had stayed under British rule rather than become independent in 1947.

Actual tweet, at the bottom

>Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?

This exactly. What's going on here is the internet hate machine has found a new target, and is eager to assign the least generous possible interpretation so they can feel good about themselves, look nice and self-righteous to their friends, get up votes, and so on. If you want to attack a man, maybe it's best to figure out what he was trying to say first.

Some of the comments even in this thread are disgusting, and they are getting plenty of upvotes; and I find it curious how a community that usually decries this sort of thing becomes so quick to engage in it.

why are you so eager to leap to Marc Andreesen's defense? surely the man can speak for himself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com