Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnarbarian | Hacker News Reader

That sounds all fine and well but half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot".

If twitter/FB/reddit had done a better job with banning spam bots originating from the GRU offices then you wouldn't be getting called a Russian bot. The effect of Russian bots is multi-pronged because it dilutes the discussion into figuring out whose is a person and who is a bot.

If anybody wants a good article to read on their commute: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

This is a 2015 investigative report digging deeper into Russian bots. Attempting to find some answers.

This happens to me too. I think people do this so they can dismiss ideas without having to refute them.

We actually have a good word for this: McCarthyism. If I don't like your opinion, you are a Soviet agent!

That's exactly why they do it.

> half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot"

It's not a "conservative" opinion per se, it happens with the left too, (as opposed to (neo)liberal), think Sanders crowd being called sexist/bros by the Clinton crowd etc. Basically if it's not a centrist opinion you're out. It's called the overton window.

Now the cat is out of the bag, freedom of speech is just a lofty ideal that only worked when all media was controlled by corporations that chose what people listened to most of the time. Now they are trying to put the cat back in the bag. Good for reiterating corporate control over thought and speech.

Corporate and state control but I agree completely.

I agree, but I think there is also another effect at play here, which is the end of private circles where opinions can be exchanged "present company excluded". If you watch old tv, for example, you'll be appalled at the sort of things (harsh, elitist, dismissive of the general opinion) that could be said even in a broadcasted event- the audience was self-selected, recordings were rare and generally unavailable, few were reading any sort of newspaper. People were entitled to unpopular opinions because they had a limited circulation. But today, when everything is recorded, cut and pasted, infinitely available and replayable, every statement made in public must be crafted to be acceptable to absolutely any audience in any context and at any time. Those who contravene the rule are at terrible risk of having their public, work and private life destroyed by public uproar- effectively resulting in a strict censorship of opinions.

Which is why we need to remove their noise from the system. A real debate of ideas is impossible with you have bad-faith actors masquerading as participants.

Not on HN, looking at your comments/submission stream.

It's mostly on twitter or reddit. As a side-note another thing that bugs the shit out of me is when someone looks at my history to find a reason to disregard my comment. (Not accusing you of this by the way)

"Oh I thought I was going to have to respond to you until I discovered you've posted somewhere I don't like."

followed up by a flood of down-votes accusations of being a bot and sometimes a ban when I was posting legit content and previously with a very positive score.

Happened to me twice last month. Once for bringing up the Code of Conduct on /r/linux.

edit: here's a perfect example that made it into print and halfway around the world while the flawed reasoning and debunking has yet to gain traction.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/2/17927696/star-wars-the-la...

followed up by:

https://www.cnet.com/news/actually-half-of-the-last-jedi-hat...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/10/02/my-russian-bot-rev...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com