Comment by Grimburger | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Grimburger | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> most hated

There's something about this word that makes me a bit cautious when it comes to media. I remember "the most hated man in America" that every news agency was telling us to hate without ever having heard of him. Dozens of CEO's have done the exact same thing as he did since then, and no one can name a single one of them because they are large companies who pay huge amounts of advertising dollars to the people who decide what is "most hated"

It put the pharma industry and their completely legal practices in an uncomfortable spotlight, and the media which happily takes their money came in running defense to find a martyr. Thankfully he was jailed for nearly a decade after making a joke on twitter so the problem is completely solved now :/

> In 2019, in the span of a few months, three gunmen posted their ‘manifesto’ on the site in advance of their terrorist attacks.

Think it is fair to note that the horrendous one in New Zealand was livestreamed in full on Facebook.

> There's something about this word that makes me a bit cautious when it comes to media.

It is a glaring example of fake consensus. They're hitting a soft target in the Daily Stormer & 8kun, but frankly the internet - and the world at large - is oozing with scum. The people who have decided they hate this particular wart are a tiny, vocal, powerful and very unlikable minority who are not representing the real emotions people feel here. Which is almost certainly tolerant indifference.

They're telling people how to think, not what is happening. People who do that are untrustworthy.

> who are not representing the real emotions people feel here. Which is almost certainly tolerant indifference.

Is that indifference coming from a place of awareness, or a place of ignorance of the whole situation? If the content of these websites was brought to light - without any sort of commentary - do you seriously think the public would still look at these sites with indifference?

> They're telling people how to think, not what is happening. People who do that are untrustworthy.

It depends on intention. And also: what is happening here that they aren't reporting?

Nazi-ism won an election and had lots of influential foreigners who supported it. Communism also had widespread support. "Popularism" is currently a dirty word because the plebs often vote for the wrong person.

I just went over to look at one of the sites in question. Even with those sorry facts in mind, I still think the Daily Stormer would get indifference. It isn't a very inspiring website and the content appears to be stupid. Their current feature article is "Women are So Ugly" which is unlikely to do well at sparking a ... whatever it is they are meant to spark. Can't go very far without women.

Most "hate" happens in big social media too. IDK at some point people will have to admit that bad people exists and will try to get together regardless of what you do.

But now if I ever find myself posting unconfortable stuff for my gov. I know where I'll look for.

Journalists Carola Houtekamer and Rik Wassens introduce Nick Lim:

> Nick Lim, a young American Internet fundamentalist with absolutist views on freedom of speech

Later, journalists Carola Houtekamer and Rik Wassens use a quote to illustrate how they want their readers to think about Nick Lim:

> "Right now, Nick Lim is like a wounded elk ... It is time to move in quickly for the kill, before he gets away again."

Lovely. "Move in quickly for the kill". Such upright anti-haters!

> At least three suicides have been linked to the brigading on [Kiwi Farms]

If a young American Internet fundamentalist ever has a bad meeting with some upright anti-hater stirred up by lovely words about "moving in for the kill," will journalists Carola Houtekamer and Rik Wassens admit to being "linked to" homicide? If Nick Lim should die by his own hand, will everybody in "anti-hate" understand that journalists Carola Houtekamer and Rik Wassens are linked to at least one suicide?

after racism lost its meaning and power due to overuse, 'hate' was the next word to be destroyed. We are looking for alternatives

"Problematic" is the new buzzword to discredit/cancel people with.

When I was seventeen on Halloween I dressed up as Aladin

I think the cultural dominance of american public holidays in woke crusades is problematic

No problem there, you just happened to be identifying as trans-Arab at that moment.

Hate is an emotional response. Maybe the journalists in the media might be required back up their ambiguous commentary on a public emotion with regulated evidence and statistics demonstrating the quantity and/or quality of the emotion. It could make very clear how tenuous some truth claims are, in the infinitely credible state and corporate media we all observe.

"Hate" evidenced from a 4chan troll board is of a quantity and quality different to "hate" sourced from a senator's or CEO's mouth. Why are emotional ideas allowed to be vaguely and uncritically reported?

Facebook moderates their platform and worked to remove the content. 8kun does no such thing.

I loathe Facebook, the pharma industry, and the capitalist machine which perpetuates these evils. But this is a whataboutism.

It was moderated, though. The thread was deleted, the shooter was banned, and multiple users cheering him on were banned.

More recently, the post that allegedly got Kiwi Farms removed from CloudFlare — a dubious bomb threat made by a previously inactive account — was removed from the site quicker than Facebook removed the Christchurch shooter's livestream.

Or, even more recently, a man live streamed himself shooting people for ~6 hours (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-08/police-ma...).

Facebook seems to be doing a poor job of moderating content.

Except that wasn't the end of it as the video was being reposted on Facebook for months. I remember reporting one instance if it and it took more than a day before it was removed.

And why should the content be removed?

It's a livestream of a racist gunman shooting actual people, together with his commentary. Real people are really being killed in that video. I'm not a fan of censorship, but this shouldn't be publicly available.

Well, it's just a video now. It was a live stream. It's awful what happened, but it's just footage documenting the event now. I understand why you wouldn't want it hosted on something like Facebook or Instagram or whatever, but to say it shouldn't be out there somewhere? What if someone wants to analyze the event, most big events don't have near that level of documentation. How is it different at this point (just the video of the event, not the event itself) from journalists documenting other awful things?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com