Hacker News Reader

Comment by noxer | Hacker News Reader

Everyone takes shortcuts these days so by Godwin's law directly calling the other person on the internet with which you disagree a nazi is peak optimization /s

On a serious note I think the problem is actually the heavy moderation and algorithmic bubble creation. Then you had certain famous and controversial people who operated above all bubbles and the different bubble started clashing.

The only way I see to fix this is if the "middle" is one bubble. And no, that's not a middle ground fallacy, I dont think the middle position is the correct one but rather that a strong middle bubble is required to separate the majority from extremist bubbles.

Unfortunately a middle bubble required people to be tolerant. But many people lost the concept of disagreeing but supporting that someone should be able voice their opinion anyway. Musk actually understand this so I'm not overly optimistic but I'm curious to see what he will do.

View on HN

On a serious note I think the problem is actually the heavy moderation

I think the problem is crude filtering falsely labeled moderation. What you'd want is a moderator who demands decent quality arguments on the topic at hand.

What you have is just removal of everyone not agreeing with a given viewpoint and allowing intemperate advocates of the given viewpoint to make the position garbage.

> What you'd want is a moderator who demands decent quality arguments on the topic at hand.

In 280 characters?

Not typing bad arguments takes fewer characters than having them.

> disagreeing but supporting that someone should be able voice their opinion anyway

It's not just "disagreement" but the death threats, slurs, allegations of "grooming", racism, libel, and simple fraud (especially involving cryptocurrency).

Heck, Musk himself posted (and deleted shortly afterwards) libel about Pete Pelosi.

If it isn't a crime or spam then it is in fact disagreement.

There is no inherent different from calling someone a "racist" or "nazi" to calling someone a "groomer". On Twitter these "slurs" are used by different sides (bubbles) but other than that there is no difference.

It might be a baseless allegation or there could be more to it but either way it is clearly an opinion and disagreeing is fine no need to prevent anyone from voicing it.

>Musk himself posted (and deleted shortly afterwards) libel about Pete Pelosi.

I would assume he was being sarcastic by posting an obvious "whack source" with a silly rather obvious made up story. But it went over peoples head so he removed it. (But that is just my interpretation)

But whatever it was, why does it bother you? What exactly is so horrible about posting something "wrong" and deleting it? What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things? Where does the "entitlement" to demand people to get everything right come from? You don't apply this standard to yourself don't you? And if you are wrong about something would you rather want people to tell you/debunk your claim or would you want your "wrong think" to just be removed?

I've yet to see that horrible combination of letters that is too dangerous to face the scrutiny of people and calling it out. Lame slurs certainly dont pose any threat to a stable individual and I dont think we should adapt to the unstable that just make everyone more and more intolerant.

> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things?

People act on that basis? If all this stuff was totally disconnected from the real world, then sure yeah whatever, but it isn't. The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information.

The "groomer" stuff worries me because I know enough queer people who are now more likely to face real, physical violence as a result.

But it's not just twitter. Some of this stuff is in "mainstream" media and politics now.

I'm only OK with you being wrong about things if you're willing to sit in an inaction bubble and do nothing which can affect me, including radicalizing others to your cause who will do things.

I'm not responsible for people acting on whatever basis they do unless I actively blackmail or incite them to do something.

>The point is that Pete Pelosi was attacked by a terrorist who'd be radicalized by wrong information.

Where exactly is the point in this? Clearly this happen before Musk's post about it so where exactly is the connection?

>The "groomer" stuff worries me...

I could tell by reading your post but I dont see any argument contrary to what I said. Its just another insult/not nice thing to say/a lie/etc. but there is nothing special about it.

It might "worry" or rather "bothers" you more that other words but that is purely subjective, we all have some kind of personal ranking of "slurs". But what matters is that I would not want the words on the top of my list banned. Not even if used against me.

>... and do nothing which can affect me...

Then we could not have this discussion because clearly it will affects you. I can try to not affect you negative but it might not work and trying is complete voluntary, its up to you to not participate in this discussion if you think I'm not interested in a civil rational exchange of thoughts. You can not demand from me or from anyone to limit their speech to what does not affect you negative. That is impossible to practice.

What others do is even more outside my control. I am not responsible for other peoples action (with certain limitation see first sentence). And I'm not going to limit my speech or want anyone else to limit their speech as a "preventive action" to stop a hypothetical person doing something wrong. That is entirely backwards, the open dialog, scrutiny and tolerance is what should make people not becoming extremists. Preventing people from having their views challenged isn't going to help anyone in the long run.

So you would have no issue with a concerted, national effort backed by politicians and the owner of the largest public square on the Internet to label you a pedophile and an enemy of the people? And you would react kindly to the wave of death threats and potential violence towards you and your loved ones that would come as a result?

This is totally silly, these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements.

Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used?

Needless to say that if a word is banned people just use a different word or they use codes. So if you are actually worried about people getting hurt you know that banning word and related account suspensions isn't doing anything against actual violence.

> Also why is "groomer" apparently "incitement of violence" but directly saying "pedophile" isn't? How can one word put people in imminent danger but the other not if they are almost interchangeably used?

That's the point. Both put people in danger when used maliciously. If I told all your neighbors that you're a pedophile and a danger to children, you would feel uncomfortable and probably unsafe. Now imagine that I told all your neighbors, and then started putting up flyers all around town. Would you feel safe? Do you think you'd be able to convince your town that you're not a pedophile? Just saying "more free speech defeats bad speech" doesn't really work.

I'm not talking about banning words. I'm talking about moderation to deal with targeted campaigns of misinformation designed to put people in danger by powerful people with huge platforms.

> these are slurs/insults not acts of violence or incitements

When your rhetoric also often includes violence, they are incitements. "There's a pedophile living in your neighborhood, snatching up children left and right, right under your nose! We must act as We The People to defend our way of life against these groomers!"

You are confusing speech on twitter with real life actions that include speech.

Going to my neighbors and lie about me is a real life action with speech. On top of that you force them to listen to you (at least temporally) AND it is targeted specifically at my neighbors which means you have an intent beyond informing people from the general public who happened to voluntary listens to you.

If it would actually be true then you could make the claim that your intent is to protect my neighbors kids (but you should ofc instead report it to the police) but if it is a baseless false accusation or lie then your INTENT was to harm me and that is not comparable in any way with a "slur", "insult" or "mean speech" its an actual criminal act.

>When your rhetoric also often includes violence, they are incitements. "There's a pedophile living in your neighborhood, snatching up children left and right, right under your nose! We must act as We The People to defend our way of life against these groomers!"

Nothing is this example is even remotely criminal, there is no way to find intent to harm someone in that. It could be boiled down to "lets protect our kids from criminals" A (generic) call to action but not to violence.

Its ofc silly to post something like that on twitter but it wouldn't even violate twitter rules. The word "groomer" on twitter is only "banned" if directed against a twitter user or other specific non-anonymous real person.

What actually happens on twitter is people are filmed acting and saying weird, creepy or sexual things around/to kids (Even the POTUS did that) and then people call them "groomers", "pedos" and other insults. I dont see the point of doing that but its definitely not criminal and not an incitement of violence its an insult and expression of disgust.

> I'm not responsible for people acting on whatever basis they do unless I actively blackmail or incite them to do something.

If you make false accusations about people, and that results in them losing business, or being harassed or physically attacked, then you are responsible.

That is wrong. Its not the result that matters but the intention.

I can say whatever I want and you can claim it direly affected you or your business but you need to prove malice/intent beyond reasonable doubt. There mere fact that an accusation was false is not enough.

Beside that no statement (false or not) justifies a physical attack so there is no legal responsibly for such an actions. Even if the attacker says he did it because of the person who made a statement.

Exceptions are ofc increment/blackmailing someone to do it/offer a bounty for the violent action/hiring a hit-men/etc. All of these obviously have malice/intent which his what matters.

Consequently hiring a hit-men is a crime even if the hit-man fails do to any damage or never had the intention to do anything and just steals the money. Because again the result doesn't make the crime its the intention that does.

Obviously all of the above is intentionally simplified and not legal advice.

> But whatever it was, why does it bother you? What exactly is so horrible about posting something "wrong" and deleting it?

It wasn't just "wrong", it was a propaganda article designed to dismiss a right-wing terrorist attack that almost killed the husband of the third highest ranking official in the country by painting the attack as a "false flag" designed to cover up homosexual infidelity. And Musk is the richest man in the world with enormous, unimaginable reach and influence. For better or worse, the more power you have, the more social obligation you have to use that power responsibly, and that includes understanding how your words will affect the thoughts and actions of others. Musk is under fire because he refuses to use his power responsibly.

As I said I think Musk posted it as satire. The article read as if it was from Babylon Bee. At no point I even questioned if he was serious about this. He does troll like that all the time, its really silly to blame him when after all this time people still take everything he says at face value.

If you actually read that article (and not just the media complaining about that he linked it) and came to the conclusion that Musk though the story was legit, then maybe reevaluate the intelligence you attribute to him. You may not like his opinion on things but he can not be that stupid.

Also the "right-wing terrorist attack" is you spreading propaganda.

People are jumping to "false flag" stories because the story as presented is simply unbelievable (the third highest ranking official in the country has zero security?), and the media is being evasive (Politico reporting a third man opened the door, then reported that it was a baseless claim!), and the media is also aggressively eager to portray a nudist hemp jewelry maker illegal alien as a MAGA loyalist.

If the story were straight, and reported honestly, some very few would remain suspicious.

It really isn't unbelievable. A mentally ill man was radicalized by right wing propaganda and went to a lawmaker's home to harm her. Her security wasn't there because she wasn't there. End of story.

You're looking for conspiracy where there is none. There is nothing "suspicious" unless you're trying to deflect blame.

> Her security wasn't there because she wasn't there. End of story.

Instead of waking Paul up and asking for Nancy so he could attack her, suppose he had planted listening devices, or explosive devices, and crept away unnoticed? But you're telling me it's perfectly reasonable to leave the home unguarded when the third in line for the presidency is away. Doesn't that seem like a horrible national security vulnerability?

It could possibly be true, but please, be honest enough to agree that it sounds unlikely.

It appears going forward, thanks to MAGA republicans, that all members of congress and their families will need security.

Yes, I agree. Those MAGA republicans who are Bay Area nudity activists, living in homes with BLM stickers, LGBT Pride flags, anti-capitalism bumper stickers, and “Berkeley Stands United Against Hate" signs in the windows are very dangerous, and there's no telling who they'll attack next.

> What is so hard about the concept of allowing people to be wrong about things?

Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function.

"People are wrong about" things like:

- who got more votes in the last US presidential election

- whether future elections in the US will be fair

- whether global warming is real

- whether Democratic politicians are literal lizard people who molest children

We have seen that when we can't agree on these basic facts, people take actions like

- attempting to overthrow the seat of government

- attempted assassination of political figures (or their spouses)

- election of politicians who say that they will overthrow elections that don't go in favor of their party

- enacting policies that threaten to create a climate catastrophe.

The reason that Musk's tweet at Hillary repeating the conspiracy theory that Paul Pelosi's assailant was a male prostitute is a problem is because, in providing an alternative (false) explanation for the attack, it contributes to hiding the truth on this issue. The truth being that we can draw a straight line from politicians' words to this attack.

And since we vote for those politicians, if people are wrong about this, then yeah, it does matter.

> Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function.

> - who got more votes in the last US presidential election

The Democrats delegitimized the outcome of the 2016 election, the Republicans the 2020, and yet we still have a functioning democracy. We're even about to have a round of elections in a few days!

> - whether global warming is real

Seriously?

I take it you don't believe in global warming?

I don't believe that democracy depends on cool temperatures.

> Because democratic society requires us to agree on basic facts in order to function.

“Agreement” is a voluntary act. If people don’t agree on fundamental facts, we need more dialog to reach agreement if possible, and mutual tolerance if not.

“Agreement” cannot be an involuntarily enforced mandate.

If people don’t agree, we cannot force them to agree by silencing dissenting voices. Even if such silencing worked in the short-term, it’s corrosive to society’s ability to discern truth.

Lets assume hypothetically someone disagree with your comment. That someone is an admin on HN. Do you want that someone to challenge your comment with arguments/reasoning (with the possibility that it is very bad reasoning might even contain factually wrong "facts" ) or do you want that someone to just remove your comment?

And which of these 2 options is more likely to make your and that hypothetical admin's opinion come closer?

What about 2 other people reading your post. One agrees 100% the other partially disagrees. Which option from above would be best for them? Which option is more likely to move their opinion more towards something all agree on?

If for any of the above situations you think deleting would be the best then ignore this reply and pretend the whole thread was deleted ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com