Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazytalk | Hacker News Reader

Alleged Russian bot here, I was torn apart in a thread about the European energy crisis for attempting a balanced perspective. It's sad to see, but not really worth the time trying to fight against it. The vast majority of folk seem actively happy to be misinformed, so long as that misinformation is consensus among their social circles. Better to use the information as some kind of indicator of the demographic you are interacting with, and act accordingly (most probably, find something better to do)

View on HN

Don't let it get you down. I was recently banned from a subreddit after one (neutral) comment for being a white supremacist.

If I'm a white supremacist, I'd hate to find out what actual white supremacists are.

I messaged the mods asking which rule I'd broken (because I hadn't broken one). They responded by muting me for 28 days.

Forget it Jake, it's Reddit-town.

It’s not just Reddit, either. This same story has played out for me on Anime News Network’s forums, some gaming forums, etc.

Ultimately I just take my toys and go home - they don’t want me there, and it’s their legal right to say so.

But it results in a forum of views that appear to show unanimous consensus that {x} is good or {y} is bad, which is potentially dangerous for society at large and certainly bad for an open society of debate and knowledge sharing.

Even worse, I’ve seen instances where a blatantly bigoted, racist, or violent extreme view is allowed to stay (down voted to hell, of course) while my and others’ more nuanced or intelligent takes are scrubbed and banned.

I can only presume this is intentional with the effect of demonstrating that “only violent extremists are anti-{x} or pro-{y}, and you wouldn’t want to be associated with those people, now, would you?”

I only wish I had an example handy to share, because it’s been pretty blatant at times.

Ultimately the moral judgements associated with every political argument is getting ridiculous and (intentionally?) stifling debate while stirring unrest, and most of it feels artificial.

I've always been against "hate speech" bans or modifiers for this reason.

Real, actionable incitement to violence and bodily harm is already covered by law as not legal speech.

You're left with either superficial hateful sentiment or someone who has a nuanced position. It's fine to say "don't do that here, thanks." But, it's being used as a cudgel from the top down to constrain public discourse and manufacture consent as what is "hate" becomes more and more abstract and more and more inclusive. If PETA is suddenly in control of the "community guidelines" on a site, would sharing the fact that I had eggs for breakfast be a form of hate speech?

Intentionally stifling debate: Yes, because it's easier to paint your opponent as a monster/dishonest/Nazi/murderer than it is to actually answer their position in a way that other people can follow and understand. It's easier to shut down debate than it is to win debate.

> I was recently banned from a subreddit after one (neutral) comment for being a white supremacist.

I'm curious what you said. There is lots and lots of actual-neo-nazi recruitment material/copypasta out there that is deliberately written to sound "neutral." I can maybe see that if you accidentally drifted to close to that then you could get caught in the crossfire.

But Ukrainian nationalists who use real Nazi symbols get a pass?

Did I suggest that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com