Hacker News Reader

Comment by coloneltcb | Hacker News Reader

I love how political posts (particularly about this corrupt, incompetent administration) get flagged on HN because they're not "on topic"

Well here you go, turns out politics affects real life, and even the tech industry.

View on HN

Many such comments get flagged not because they're political, but because they're inflammatory and lacking insight. Civil and substantive comments, which have at least a chance at inviting thoughtful discussion, are what we're after.

I've struggled with this, too, and disagree strongly with the flagging of political posts. As if the intersection of technology and politics is an annoying childish distraction beneath more clever and neutral discussions about Rust releases or (on today's first page and not for the first time) Getting Things Done.

I feel there's an INCREASE in the intersection between tech and politics, because tech has become more accessible both to the masses but also to the courts and politicians who write our destinies.

To wildly flag posts as political or (StackOverflow-style 'off-topic') is, arguably, morally wrong. I saw an introduction-type post by a new HN moderator a few months back who described his reasoning for reduction of political posts. Alas, the mission is in vain.

And when they don't, a lukewarm middle-of-the-road comment will inevitably rise to the top, contributing nothing to the discussion other than perhaps a milquetoast industry anecdote.

Has the word 'milquetoast' recently increased in usage by several orders of magnitude? I seem to be seeing it a lot. I suppose words go viral like any other meme.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human...

I've noted a few trends in namely in article headlines, and subsequently in commenters: foment being the most notable. It was like the word of the summer, replacing every instance where a more a familiar and easily parsable word would do. Now it's dissipated.

That's just a weak observation, though. It might be interesting to seek data points for the subject.

People learn new words and then begin to use them any time they can in an attempt to appear "more smarter".

Life in society and politics cannot be dissociated.

And often times "not on topic" is just an excuse to silence unpopular opinions. Many people consider the things they disagree with to be "political" while the things they agree with are just common sense.

In the end, especially on HN, it comes down to a discussion regarding money and who is allowed to make it and who is not. You'll find startups opposed because it hinders their opportunity to disrupt an established business, and you'll find entrenched business opposed to not making money as they see fit. There is nothing political about this discussion, it's just about money and which side of the coin you are trying to make it on.

What is not political about using public policy to control who gets to make money?

I meant the discussion on HN wont be. This is absolutely a political maneuver bought by lobbyist. People on HN will be upset that it will be more difficult to 'disrupt' and 'hack' on the established.

Being upset on the internet is itself a political maneuver that seeks to build support for your cause by spreading outrage. Deciding which links get shared and discussed is likewise a political act.

Except in this case all of the entrenched, large internet businesses (Google, Facebook, etc) are against ending net neutrality. You would think that since they have the deep pockets to pay ISPs, they would be the beneficiaries. So are they protesting this action simply out of principal? Or is there some other benefit they get from net neutrality that I'm not seeing?

They would have to pay the ISPs? It may well benefit them in the long run by increasing the size of their moats, but it will immediately affect their bottom lines.

Imagine you were selling your rent controlled apartment on Airbnb and all the sudden the landlord wanted a fat cut. You'd be pissed...

> So are they protesting this action simply out of principal?

No they are protesting to protect their wallet as well. If suddenly ISP's feel you should have to pay extra to use Google, that will have an immediately and direct affect on Google's revenue. That is why they are protesting.

See also: partisans complaining that they're "sick of politics" when presented with opposing opinions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com