[flagged]
The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon.
Sure. Will have a look at the guidelines and appreciate the pointer, as well as the job you have to do.
>The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon.
But, I don't appreciate the additional editorializing and don't believe your attempt to ridicule me here stands up to your own guidelines. Add to that the fact that you are a moderator, and the standard to which you hold yourself should be even higher.
And, that speaks only to the style you chose here. On the substance, of course we know that my pointing to what I noted as an observable pattern vs merely "something I dislike online" are two entirely different matters. We also know that such things as trolls and shills continue to exist, even if some too readily make the claim that they are present. As for me, you will very rarely find those claims in my history here and, where I have applied it, you might even be surprised at the patterns were you to look more closely. Or not. I could certainly be wrong.
But, as it is, you've restated my position so as to trivialize it, then ridiculed it. In so doing, you've moved it from "hey, please don't do that here, as it's a violation" to "here's my opinion of your comment".
If you want to be part of the discussion to make some additional point about what you think of people who, say, display an "internet reflex" you disdain, then perhaps use a throwaway. But, as it is, I would have difficulty seeing how your comment doesn't "further a flamewar", apart from your position as a moderator precluding members from engaging with you in such.
When it comes to users accusing each other of astroturfing, shilling, spying, and so on, the only conclusion that fits the data is that people are imagining things. In reality, the community is simply divided and users have opposing views. Unfortunately, when my view is sufficiently obnoxious to your side or vice versa, the assumption of good faith evaporates and people reach for more sinister explanations. We can speculate about why, but it's clear that users are projecting those sinister explanations onto fellow users. The more divisive the topic, the more opposed people's views become and the more harshly they express them, leading to more projection, accusation, and division. A vicious loop.
This is especially toxic to HN because HN is a single community where everybody sees the same threads. Here you are more likely to run into views that you strongly dislike than you are on sites where communities partition into like-minded factions. Even when discussions on HN are more thoughtful than these other places, the fact that you're part of one big group—everybody, instead of mostly your own tribe—makes them feel less so.
When people post aggressive remarks to HN, they're not just bonding with their own tribe, they're simultaneously broadcasting to the other side, who take the harshness like a punch. All sides do this, so all sides feel punched. This is painful and one can't help but react internally. I believe that the accusatory reactions are self-protective. If you're a spy or a shill, that explains whatever you say and I needn't give it any credence. Unfortunately, these defensive reactions are also offensive ones, so we get an escalatory cycle. If HN is to avoid being ripped apart, we need a rule against such accusations. Therefore we do have such a rule.
1. There are other contexts on HN where we do find manipulation: usually startups or projects trying to promote themselves, but occasionally also more sophisticated astroturfing that appears to involve larger companies.
2. More on this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403438. For a specific example, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19404162.
p.s. I'm sorry that felt like I was targeting you specifically. My intention was only to say something about a general phenomenon which I've written about many times already: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
I have seen zero reputable people on HN expressing anything that supports this assertion.
>it's telling that rather than discuss the possibility that trump is clean, you just call them trolls and bots.
Discuss with whom? The "people" who just downvote anything perceived to be anti-Trump or anti-Russia? That's the point. This isn't the first time that pattern has emerged on HN. Obviously, an online community with HN's makeup is a prized target.
Or are you one of those who doesn't believe there have been any bots or trolls or other propaganda aimed at Americans? U.S. intelligence just made it up? Facebook and Twitter just made it up? It's all the Deep State is it? That, and liberal bias in social media?
Trump colluded out in the open and continues to do so. A foreign adversary plotted to help him and a byzantine maze of people around him and his campaign have been indicted, pled guilty, lied about contacts with Russia, etc. But, it's all a coincidence and has nothing to do with Trump, the ignorant beneficiary?
Meanwhile, Trump also oddly and consistently checks off the Russian dictator's bucket list, denigrating his own country (intel community, McCain, etc.) whenever it speaks ill of that dictator. In order to have people overlook all of this, he invents a conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Republicans and Democrats within the government is plotting against him. And, that neatly explains everything that is not pro-Trump.
Talk about lazy propaganda.
It'a absurd. But, in order to defend him as "clean", absurdity and inane conspiracy theories are required, right down to the complete denial of reality.
He's clean. There's literally no evidence he's not. Muellers report is done and after the Intel agencies working for nearly 3 years - they got nothing.
It's probably hard for you to see, but you're literally doing the thing you're frantically and emphatically complaining is happening on the right.
There are people out there with differing views. Red states have internet too.
And not like it justifies the Russians, but MediaMatters bots Reddit for the DNC.
I don't think HackerNews is a big enough target for anyone tbh.
>There are people out there with differing views
Strawmen.
>And not like it justifies the Russians, but MediaMatters bots Reddit for the DNC
Citation? What's your point, anyway? This is just what-aboutism that has nothing to do with the question at-hand. Obviously.
>I don't think HackerNews is a big enough target for anyone tbh
The HN community is sizeable and traffic from articles posted on HN routinely knocks sites offline. Additionally, some of the sharpest technical minds online hang out here. Of course it's a rich target.
Your comment is all deflection and strawmen. Not much unlike the standard propaganda of the day.