Hacker News Reader

Comment by glitchc | Hacker News Reader

Everyone at one point has made a comment that has been downvoted or moderated out of existence. The rejection sticks in your mind. Effectively, that is censorship.

View on HN

If we end up saying downvotes = censorship, then "censorship" is fine. The natural reaction of "uh oh, censorship is bad, we should be careful about that" only makes sense if we're careful about how we use the word.

The rejection sticks in your mind.

"If it feels bad it's censorship" is not a particularly useful definition of 'censorship'. It should give you pause that most messageboard complaints about 'censorship' revolve around it - you never see someone passionately argue how their top comment (with page-consuming thread hanging off it) is 'censoring' other viewpoints.

Downvoting and moderation are censorship though. If people dismiss your views out of hand without a rational response, such as a downvote or comment deleted by a moderator, the hurt feelings are natural because it's an action without a rationale (no mens rea).

Why would someone complain about their comment being the top comment? They are the most popular person at that point.

So if you're the most popular person thereby 'censoring' other comments, that's not censorship? It's only censorship if it feels bad? What about the people who feel bad their comment isn't the top comment? I'm in violent agreement that feeling bad feels... bad. It's just that's not what we normally call censorship, if the term is to have any semblance of an objective meaning.

"Downvoting and moderation are censorship though. If people dismiss your views out of hand without a rational response, such as a downvote or comment deleted by a moderator, the hurt feelings are natural because it's an action without a rationale (no mens rea)."

But doesn't that imply that you're entitled to a response? And why would you say there's no rationale? It might not be a rationale that you like, but there certainly is one; your post was either violating the guidelines or wasn't contributing to the conversation.

"Why would someone complain about their comment being the top comment? They are the most popular person at that point."

That viewpoint is part of the problem; votes aren't supposed to be about popularity.

Maybe you take internet points entirely too seriously. If you find that getting downvoted has emotionally wounded you, I recommend abandoning all your accounts and creating new ones with zero karma (presumably much less than your old ones.) This will teach you to disassociate internet points from your sense of self-worth.

It's funny how it's automatically about me when I was making a general statement :). Of course you feel self-righteous and above the fray, but really, you are human like the rest of us.

Most people are unable to decouple their sense of self-worth from the public perception of themselves. It takes a great deal of introspection and self-discipline to detach in the manner described, and even then, it stings at first before the brain kicks in to post-hoc rationalize the response. It's how human beings are wired and a few years of deep thought are not going to change millenia of evolutionary responses.

The expectation that there is no moderation is what confuses me. FB and others don’t have any obligation to provide a soap box to users. Advertisers are usually a different story.

You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.

Would you assume I'm right-wing if I do not use politically correct terminology? Will slowing down change my world-view or simply the language I use to express it?

It wasn't directed at your post, sorry. It's the rate-limit response HN gives - users who are "slow-banned" see it on posting more than 1 post every 5 minutes. Another form of censorship, as others can post when you cannot.

As to your specific points:

> Would you assume I'm right-wing if I do not use politically correct terminology?

Frankly, yes. Politically correct speech appears to be today's shibboleth[0].

> Will slowing down change my world-view or simply the language I use to express it?

Slowing down a poster will reduce their ability to express their viewpoint, diluting it among other posters.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

I think you misread that post. He was quoting HN's forced cooldown that's imposed if the system thinks you're in some sort of heated flamewar. I assume he means to suggest this is a form of soft censorship tied into the internet points system (which is to say, it seems like he's agreeing with you.)

Oh I see. Did not realize, thank you for pointing that out. I was merely trying to have a philosophical discussion by taking a controversial viewpoint.

"Would you assume I'm right-wing if I do not use politically correct terminology?"

I would, because it implies that your desire to not change how you speak is more important to you than making others feel comfortable.

There's a ton of liberal west coast idealists on HN who pretty much hate anyone who isn't exactly like them or who they don't understand. They think they're better than everyone else with their Macs and their pure functional programming.

These people can only exist in a bubble though. Most people outside that bubble are laughing at them.

Censorship would be actions initiated by the mods/owners of the forum... it could be fake downvotes, but usually it is much worst then that (shadowban, etc...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com