Tell HN: I'm scared of sharing my opinion online | Hacker News Reader

Tell HN: I'm scared of sharing my opinion online

75 pointsrhasejr117 comments

I guess I'm posting this on this throwaway because of the very topic of this post.

I don't feel safe sharing my true opinion online. I generally find that I'm very distant in belief from a lot of people on social media (reddit, twitter, let alone facebook or whatever, even if I don't use them).

Just to give an example, I couldnt care less about people engaging in incest and find it just an old cultural taboo. Adults are responsible enough to know about the dangers of having children and they can do whatever they want.

Say, on reddit (even if some might agree), I would typically get people calling me disgusting, downvoting, going through my post history, attacking me, DMng me, whatnot. This in itself is not a big deal, but when disliked opinions by the hivemind start to pile, you are seen as an enemy, someone to be sabotaged, followed around and downvoted, etc. If it links to your real identity? Oh boy. One wrong opinion here in the US is enough to ruin your life. Ah, i just remembered that article about a mentally challenged guy who dressed as Hitler in halloween and as a result got fired from his 20+ or so year janitor job. Not the same, but I somehow find it relevant in a way. (He was making fun of hitler, he claimed)

I'm not unhealthily paranoid, and I'm not someone with outright illegal views. But I don't fit the right or the left, and so I have no allies, sometimes only enemies.

I don't want to make this too long. I'm venting here because people here are more open minded than in general (even if I feel that's changing with the years and as more people join here... just me?)

Thanks for reading.

View on HN

Why do you want to share your opinions on controversial topics? What do you get out of it? No one cares about your opinions on incest except to dunk on you. You're not going to revolutionize society's opinions on incest. So stop doing that. There's a whole universe of non-politics and non-religion topics out there. Go find a cool one. Maybe explore music theory and analysis, plenty of people to talk to about that. Maybe find a creative hobby, lots of communities to share your creations. Maybe try reverse-engineering an old Nintendo game and documenting your findings.

If it hurts, stop doing it.

> If it hurts, stop doing it.

I'd love to say that in some cases. But boy that may backfire....

On some level this response seems sane, but the more I think about it the more insane it is.

Are we seriously questioning why someone wants to share their opinions on a topic? Are we actually clueless as to what they get out of it?

Is telling them they should instead spend a great deal of time following a completely unrelated pursuit our solution?

"Hey, I'm having a hard time expressing myself while feeling safe from (as I see it) arbitrary harassment, and managing vectors for imagined retributions"

"Go decompile donkey kong"

...right

> Are we seriously questioning why someone wants to share their opinions on a topic? Are we actually clueless as to what they get out of it?

Yes, feel free to explain why that’s insane. It seems absolutely normal to keep things to yourself

There is no way this is a good faith question. As someone delivering their opinion on the internet - surely you can explain why someone would like to deliver their opinion on the internet.

I personally don’t get anything out of sharing my opinion on the internet, I do it out of reflex and I actually have been taking measures to stop doing it. So no, not asking in bad faith.

I wasted a decade+ on my life arguing online all day. I see what coldpie says. It is legitimately a pointless waste of time.

Obviously I am still on HN so I still do it, but I definitely feel it's futile and it's a guilty pleasure. But even here, I've lurked or posted for many years too and I can't recall anyone changing their opinion on anything.

I dont think mental jousting is completely devoid of value depending on the topic. The benefits are just difficult to measure.

Even if you haven't changed opinions, you may have helped take down strawmen or aid others in steelmaning.

The possibility to have a healthy debate on any topic is the root of progress!

Fair enough, though I would argue it’s impossible to have a healthy meaningful debate on “the internet” (by which I mean reddit or any social media)

Sadly true

"A rule of etiquette -- in business, at the dinner table, at the barbershop and elsewhere -- is 'never talk about religion or politics.' These subjects are highly contentious and usually result in heated argument instead of general agreement. 'Never discuss religion or politics with those who hold opinions opposite to yours' has been cited in print since at least 1840. 'Do not discuss politics or religion in general company' is from 1879."

https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/nev...

I think we will somehow survive as a society without hearing this dude's thoughts on incest. And yes, I think people would be better served spending their time on hobbies than arguing politics on the Internet.

The person is not walking in to business meetings arguing the ethics of incest. Clearly they understand this given their declaration of a throwaway.

I think it's also probably safe to say they're not delivering these opinions as non-sequiturs. If there is some news article posted for discussion about incest, and I showed up to say "I don't like incest", I doubt I'd find anyone telling me about references to

> 1840, The Corsair, “The Letter Bag of the Great Western,” pg. 775, col. 1

But look what seems to happen at the inverse?

Make of the opinion what you will, but bashing the engagement is a bit rich.

OP is just giving the outsiders perspective to the hivemind. It's worth hearing now and then imo.

> OP is just giving the outsiders perspective to the hivemind. It's worth hearing now and then imo.

Sometimes it can even be fun. I've gotten a surprising number of upvotes with no supporting comments in the past on here, presumably from others too afraid to speak up.

You're on Hacker News saying people shouldn't talk about politics? Either you're badly lost, or you don't recognize politics even when they hit you over the head.

Hobbies are overrated. Arguing politics on the Internet is another hobby.

What if this was about black people right to sit at the front of the bus? Would you still say: "Why do you want to share your opinions on controversial topics? What do you get out of it? No one cares about your opinions on apartheid except to dunk on you. You're not going to revolutionize society's opinions on black people. So stop doing that."

Not saying incest and apartheid are the same thing, but we need to be able to discuss all ideas in an open way, even the ones that most of us find uncomfortable. Otherwise democracy dies.

Organizing for massive political change has pretty much no overlap with arguing with people on Reddit. Arguing on the Internet is just a lame hobby some people get caught up in, and it would be good for everyone if they found a better one to spend their time on.

If he wants to spin up an Incest Rights Advocacy group, he can certainly go do that. But arguing on Reddit and then feeling sad about it is not Step 1 in that process.

> Why do you want to share your opinions on controversial topics? What do you get out of it? No one cares about your opinions on incest except to dunk on you. You're not going to revolutionize society's opinions on incest.

One person won't, but echo chambers definitely do solidify people's opinions. I'm old enough to have seen popular opinions on a lot of issues move during my own lifetime, and things really start to get extreme at about the point where people feel like they can't oppose the trend. That happens pretty much regardless of whether the new or old opinion was "right" or "wrong". And if the accepted opinion started out largely "right", it very often ends up getting pushed into a more extreme version that's closer to "wrong".

It's called "groupthink". It's one reason that having persistent handles isn't necessarily as good an idea as you'd think in online discussions. Which is itself an opinion close to some danger areas right now...

I feel like groupthink could be a good thing in the old context where you were part of a community and discussing these things was something you did in the checkout line at the market and people would either nod, or give you odd stares or be like WTF, now that everything is online though, every opinion can find like minded people to champion it, and bad idea-makers are emboldened to take a bad idea and make it a meme and it grows and builds momentum. QAnon is a good example of this.

When you had a smaller pool of people and their political/religious backgrounds were more wide and open you'd be more thoughtful about what you say, and discussions were more academic less political, but now it seems everyone has a motive behind what they say or do and everything is about being grouped under socialist, neoliberal, capitalist, patriot, nationalist, ring-wing nutjob, extremist, etc...

My point is the problem is online echo chambers, if we had a way to build larger but similar wide-view communication platforms maybe we'd have less politicization but then people probably wouldn't use it because that's what they're seeking an outlet for their political idealogies.

Sure, donkey kong .vs the neurotic generation. It's the same, right?

As long as now one attacks me with the violence of typing mean letters into the intertubes...

I mean, I don’t disagree with the general point of being privacy focused as a default. Yes, that should be everyone’s approach given that we don’t openly share in real life.

However, I do find it hilarious in a rather childish way that you are surprised how people react to your opinion on incest. Of all opinions, why even use that as an example? It just shows that there simply is an issue of over sharing and not being able to read the fucking room

“ Just to give an example, I couldnt care less about people engaging in incest and find it just an old cultural taboo. Adults are responsible enough to know about the dangers of having children and they can do whatever they want.”

You know what I get from your opinion? That you are ok with adults abusing children they are related to. Even if that’s not your point, you have to at least recognize that’s gonna be a generally unpopular opinion unless you tend to hang out with pedophiles.

So, check yourself before you wreck yourself.

OP never said anything about pedophilia, just incest between consenting adults. I guess you proved his point.

Most incest happening in the world is not done between consenting adults. It is done through rape of children. Leaving that out may be construed as a way to shift of the overton window on incest.

You can, of course, point to reliable statistics on that, collected and analyzed using defensible methods. Right?

I suspect that you are wrong, and that most incest happens between same-age adolescent or young adult siblings (and even more between cousins if you count cousins). But I don't have any actual data to back that up either, and would be amazed if any worthwhile data even exist.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens

34% of reported sexual assault on children take place by family members.

... which has exactly zero bearing on the question.

Let me make sure I got this right... I make a statement about how a lot of incest is due to rape. You cannot fathom that and ask for stats. I provide them from a child abuse organization that also links to the underlying government statistics. You respond with it's irrelevant. You are not arguing in good faith.

The word you used was "most", not "a lot".

Even "a lot" could reasonably be treated as having been a statement about the proportion, but it would not have been a precise enough statement to argue about. And "a lot" could also be treated as talking about an absolute number, in which case the question of whether something was "a lot" would be a total matter of personal opinion.

"Most", on the other hand, has a very clear meaning in terms of relative numbers... which that RAINN link does nothing to support.

"Arguing in good faith" includes not trying to quietly rewrite your position in the middle.

Even now you refuse to engage on my original position. My original position was that leaving out the very real issue of rape when it comes to incest could be construed as trying to move the overton window. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word most, but instead, at least 1/3 of all reported child abuse is done by family. This stat should easily backup my original position that incest and rape are intrinsically linked. You cannot ignore this when discussing incest on the internet.

At least some percentage of all sex is rape, so by your, um, logic, the two are "intrinsically linked", and mentioning sex without bringing up rape is trying to move the Overton window.

AND the original post explicitly limited the field to adults. So even that had already been dealt with.

You are operating in the proud rhetorical tradition that calls all LGBT people "groomers"... and I'm done with you.

Apologies if you find my rhetoric to be like that and I will attempt to speak with more clarity in the future. I would never assume that LGBT people are groomers. My reading of the OP's statement didn't explicitly limit the field to adults. Maybe on this topic, I am skewed by my personal experience. I have several friends who were raped by family members and that trauma has seriously scarred them. The number is high enough for me not to trust others engaging in pro-incest rhetoric as I know exactly zero people engaged in consensual incest. One might say that is because it is taboo to talk about... I don't have a good response to that. I imagine that our actual views on this topic are more in line than what is appearing in this thread. I do not have any issue with consenting adults of sound mind engaging in victimless activities of their choosing. This does get muddied by issue of pregnancy though.

> as I know exactly zero people engaged in consensual incest

And why, pray, should they come out only to face unfounded accusations of rape and child abuse?

> The word you used was "most", not "a lot".

You missed that it's a totally different statistic. Even if it was 100% of reported sexual assault on children is by family members, it could still be that incest between consenting adults is more common.

“A large proportion of pedophilic relationships is incestual” is not the same as “a large proportion of incestual relationships is pedophilic”

This proves much of sexual assault is incest, not that much of incest is sexual assault.

You don't need data. A dictionary will cover it.

> You know what I get from your opinion? That you are ok with adults abusing children they are related to. Even if that’s not your point, you have to at least recognize that’s gonna be a generally unpopular opinion unless you tend to hang out with pedophiles.

That's not even close to what OP stated. What are you talking about?

> That's not even close to what OP stated.

Exactly, but that goes to show how conditioned/indoctrinated some people can be and its not their fault.

Its not like defenses against indoctrination or subversion are taught in K-12 (school), its more the other way around.

People see one thing and act like you say something else, when you didn't. Its an irrational state often found in demoralization which is a goal of subversive propaganda.

Its often referred to as trigger associations, and quite a lot of people have these thanks to no regulation of subversive content over the years.

Those people are being irrational, and you can't argue with someone or something that doesn't reason.

Honestly if they were intelligent, they'd strive to identify and remove those triggers through systematic desensitization. The fact that you can't rationally communicate on a subject you disagree with is a pretty good test for those associations. Most people don't have the self-awareness to do this though largely because if they did, they wouldn't be in that state to begin with, at least some would argue that.

Its important to read what was said, and then react rationally, and respond to what was actually said.

If you can't talk, then you can't think. Its a necessary requirement for intelligence and critical thought. Just because you talk to someone doens't mean you have to agree with them, not even in the slightest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare).

First of all, I'm not ok with incest in principle. However, they stated that they are talking about incest between adults. Nothing to do with abusing children.

You're not the main character. You're not entitled to have the world accept your opinions gracefully. You're not even entitled to a "fair hearing out" of your views.

Unless you deliberately want to engage in advocacy to change society's view on a topic or persuade other people keep controversial opinions to yourself. If you aren't sure test the waters only in appropriate contexts without committing to the opinion which can let you safely gauge reactions.

I'm assuming these are mostly theoretical concerns not things you want to do yourself but without being judged.

FWIW I'm not the main character nor is anyone else.

FWIW #2: The sibling effect naturally causes partner aversion to any other children you spend a certain amount of time with growing up. Normally functioning brains exclude these people as romantic partners, though there are "exceptions" like siblings or cousins raised apart from each other. That's the source of the cultural taboo so you're gonna have a tough time getting anyone to sign on to that opinion. We evolved this way to prevent inbreeding so it's a fairly strongly preserved trait.

People have become rather fond of the word "entitlement", there seems to be a particular glee in telling people they are entitled to nothing and great relish in telling them their suffering is justified and born out of arrogance and personal flaws.

It's funny because it's something I used to hear all the time from very conservative voices when arguing for progressive change. Now it seems to have been adopted by the other side to shut down the mildest complaints. If you ask to be able to discuss a controversial opinion without verbal abuse, harassment and threats, you are not entitled, you are a normal human being in a civilized society.

I'm struggling to get past OP's central conceit here: they want to share views that are generally considered unreasonable, but then are surprised when others in turn may behave in an unreasonable way towards them. It really seems like two peas in the same pod. (Worth noting we are getting the most positive read on OP's proposals via self-disclosure, while we assume the most negative responses via the same.)

It's also worth noting that the OP has not claimed they have suffered verbal abuse, harrassment, or threats. It's as likely that if they were speaking in person the typical response would be someone disengaging from the conversation with haste. I imagine many HN readers are very familiar with how the nature of online discourse fundamentally shifts the responses available.

If you are expressing your opinion on a topic, unsolicited, in a public forum, you are absolutely promoting the held opinion and seek to influence others by the act of sharing it. That also connotes that you place importance on the topic. Choose your battles judiciously.

I personally disregard anything that is opinion from anonymous sources. It is literally a worthless opinion, regardless of topic. The worth of an opinion is largely based upon knowledge of the source. Is it someone I trust? Is it someone I respect? Or is it someone who has been consistently incorrect or shown to be a liar? If the opinion held is worth sharing, then it is worth sharing with attribution to a real person. You need to have skin in the game.

Sometimes it is important to share an opinion in order to inform change, be it societal, policy, etc. Silence is the acceptance of the status quo. But again, choose your battles judiciously.

A lot of the replies really zero in on the example topic of incest, rather than abstracting actual subject. Like delving into the backstory of the characters in a word problem. Weird.

Everyone is self-censoring these days, and you really need to operate within a limited persona if you have an online presence. If you aren't political, you don't really need to share controversial opinions online. That's just how it is. If you have a peculiar interest, you can still hide in the crowd and try not to use your main online identity on smaller forums. For example, various porn forums actually promote the idea of incest because it's an old and overdone taboo in the fiction they consume or something.

Even if you are political, there's usually not a need to share your opinions online.

I'm political, but my politics are often irrelevant (especially somewhere like HN). Even when politics comes up, it's not like I write a manifesto.

100% this.

I'd say I'm "political" - my username is literally a self-reported political identifier. I often post about various political topics here that I feel strongly about, or where I feel like I have an opinion or context that's uncommon in this community.

What I don't do is get worked up when someone disagrees with me, even if they do so in a rude or dismissive way. After all, most of the time the entire reason I'm commenting is because I believe I have an uncommon/unpopular perspective that I'd like to share. It would be odd to do that and then be surprised when someone doesn't share it.

I am sure there are plenty of people online who agree with you about these weird things, and other places where even if they don't share your specific opinion they will respect it. As long as it doesn't involve putting yourself in a bubble then there are places where they hang out which I am sure you can find if you want to discuss these things.

If you don't have any interest in discussing specific inflammatory taboos then don't. We all self-censor. You wouldn't casually mention your disregard of cultural taboos at an office party or to someone you just met at a coffee shop, so why do you think that it should be acceptable online? You are still in public.

The fact that you expect people to act like everything is fine because we are in online spaces is not rational nor do I think it is reasonable. Either (I) find somewhere you can go where being 'weird' in your specific way is generally accepted, (II) self-censor your views to mitigate the backlash you don't want to deal with, or (III) deal with the consequences of people thinking that your opinion is a shitty one.

Would simply not posting your opinions online be a solution? I keep my controversial opinions to my close group of friends and from what I gather they do the same

I spend a lot of time online and I don't think I've ever felt the need to weigh in on incest. So I dunno, maybe other people aren't the issue here?

Regardless - I wouldn't really worry too much about the opinions of people on the internet. In particular on very large communities like Reddit, the inmates are running the asylum there.

I used to comment on (semi) controversial topics and get into very long and very tedious discussions with strangers

I also did that alot in real life with non strangers

Once I stopped doing that I became much happier. Stick to things that are facts/proven instead of controversial/edgy opinions and you will be much happier

Not using the same (virtual) identity everywhere is a good idea in general.

Seconded. Not saying you have to use throwaways for everything but have a few usernames you can cycle around and change em up every so often.

Stylometric analysis is a thing.

Just get ChatGPT to write the controversial content!

Successfully maintaining multiple unlinkable online identities is more difficult than most people expect. One slip-up, and you're linked. Too much sharing and you're deanonymized completely.

It's not a thing that most people can succeed at over the long term.

For example, recently a Twitter data breach has been in the news. If you are two of the 400M users, then your phone number or some other bit of information will likely be the same across identities.

Yes, it's hard to keep them separate, however if the goal is go prevent automatic merging of several profiles, it can help.

Looks like you are a very young fellow. Anyway here are my suggestions:

1) Never ever talk about taboo subjects in situations where you have a lot to lose: for example jobs.

2) It is still worth broaching (very, very carefully) some minor taboo subjects just to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff being people who have the majority view. The people who have minority/contrarian view often have different and better though out views even on subjects that really matter like which framework do you use or avoid, health etc. Democracy/consensus is generally tyranny of the masses: not what is right.

3) Good luck to you. Most people are mob like including the folks at here at HN.

> Democracy/consensus is generally tyranny of the masses: not what is right.

Yep, serial killers and such are cool, it is just blind statism led by all the sheeple that they're going to be locking up that Idaho murder guy. I am very contrarian and counterintuitive.

White centered, heterosexual centered, male centered opinions held in the last few centuries by the majority of people show that being held by the majority of people doesn't make an opinion right.

Democracy isn't perfect and recognising it is important but at least it allows for change to happen if it's worth it so there is that

> held in the last few centuries by the majority of people

I suspect that India and China either individually or collectively might like to challenge you on that assertation of "majority".

I'm guessing that was a deliberately self aware foot shooting comment crafted to highlight Anglo-centric myopia?

I didn't know that the world was a global democracy.

Yeah, China's racist policiess are really making Europe a repressed minority /s

Democracies are limited on scope to countries and yes, the comment was made focusing on the US.

It isn't - perhaps you might like to form better phrased comments to clearly indicate you're restricting yourself to a tiny sunset of the world when making broad sweeping statements rather than annexuring post restrictions after the fact.

"White people are all wrong, so lets just do the opposite" is far from perfect as well. And I can't think of any culture in the world which is free from all kinds of internal oppressions, white people don't have a monopoly. Corruption and oppression pretty universally descends from greed, wealth and power. The particular people who have the wealth and power and the ones that seem shittiest at the time though. And that begs the question of if democracy would work a lot better without all those forces. Policies that the powerful don't like are often very popular, but are undermined by (typically) racist us vs. them sentiment--and is claiming that this is a "white (etc)" problem just playing into their hands...

Are you scared of sharing these opinions at your work gatherings? If so, then how does being online change anything?

What you're really scared of is enduring the consequences of sharing your controversial opinions. You know your opinions are controversial, you know you're going to endure negative consequences for sharing them, so it makes sense to not share them. After all, what's the point? In all honesty, it's most likely you're an asshole who likes people getting all riled up and laughing at them for getting them riled up. You can't seriously think you're going to change anyone's opinions on such topics in a casual setting.

I agree with you, and have the same problem. Even though staying anonymous is not too difficult, it's frustrating that it's required. It feels alienating to learn that others are hostile to your thoughts and ideas, to learn that under the freedom of anonymity others still disagree with you, more harshly than they might in person. And it's frustrating to see that some other people are able to fit into the social zeitgeist using their real names, seemingly with no socially unpalatable opinions. (I suppose they probably have their own secret accounts, as well as thick skins.)

I don't think of myself as having particularly offensive or niche opinions, but I probably have a contrarian or confrontational style of communication which causes offense. Certain people (such as INTPs, which we probably both are) tend to pride themselves on being smart and logical. It hurts our self-image when someone disagrees with us.

We also like to discuss things in purely logical and theoretical terms without regard for the context or connotations of the logic. For example, when discussing incest like you did, most people would use a bunch of disclaimers, like "I'm not actually into incest at all, and definitely not a pedophile, but...". You and I would tend to leave out those disclaimers as a matter of pride, because they aren't relevant to the logical idea that you're proposing, and are only useful at defending against ad-hominem attacks. We expect the reader to discuss the topic on purely theoretical grounds in pursuit of the truth. I dislike having to use those disclaimers and often leave them out on purpose because I want to "win" the discussion with my ideas, not my character. This tends to make me unpopular on Reddit. In real life, of course, I would use disclaimers because I care about my reputation beyond the realm of ideas. It's just disappointing that even ostensibly-anonymous social media isn't free of those constraints.

Honestly, I like 4chan for this reason. People don't shy away from uncomfortable opinions there; instead, they run towards them. I strongly disagree with most of the 4chan zeitgeist, and hate a lot of the people there, but its unfiltered nature is refreshing sometimes.

Reddit is trash. Don’t go there. Don’t try and reason with fools. Most people, since the beginning of time, are fools. Accept that. Learn to disguise your real thoughts or phrase them in that special, if convoluted way, that makes them acceptable. Or don’t and be anonymous.

If you want to be an asshole, be an asshole. Just don't complain when others treat you as an asshole.

We all have thoughts we choose not to express. The ability to choose whether to express a thought is arguably the most human of human traits. You are not special for having unspoken thoughts.

Nobody gets the freedom of speech without also taking its complement: the privilege of bearing the consequences (positive and negative) of choosing whether to speak.

Yeah I’m not really sure what OP is asking.

Are other people not allowed to respond negatively? Is a down vote or a disagreement comment and response equivalent so scary?

And you should, unless you have actual training in hiding your traces online (and I don't mean something as simple as "use Tor and a VPN").

There are three situations where you should not assume privacy: 1. When you express yourself online. 2. When there is a smartphone in close proximity (whether yours or someone else's). 3. When you are in someone else's property or home. This includes apartments, houses, shopping venues, bars, restaurants, etc. You are almost always being recorded in some way or another (audio, photos, videos). This also includes your own home if you don't live alone or if you haven't actively banned any connected equipment from entering your premises (e.g. iot devices, smart TV, computer, smartphone, etc.).

If you feel an urge to share your true opinions anyways, I'd suggest the following: 1. Always assume you are being recorded. 2. Always assume what you say/write will be shared to third-parties by the people you trust the most and kept for years. Most often this is done involuntarily. Statistically speaking, you can assume that everyone around you has no clue on how to secure their own devices (e.g., smartphone, TV, vacuums, fridges, etc.) from sharing whatever they capture. 3. Always assume that at least one individual strongly disagrees with you, and he/she may actively hide this fact from you.

If you want to express yourself anonymously, get training. And by that, I don't mean read a webpage, I mean: talk to one or two experts who specialize in online anonymity.

But in most cases, keep your real thoughts for yourself.

I don't share my opinions on the internet any more, or at least try to avoid it. That's what my friends are for. I don't finding it a rewarding experience, and I find the prevalence of other people sharing their opinions online to generally make the experience worse for me.

I will however share my experience, what I have done, how I did it, how it worked, how it failed, how I choose the live my life, and why I make those choices. But these are not opinions, rather they are facts about me. People can do with those facts what they wish. If people disagree, well that hardly matters because these are my choices not theirs.

My solution to this is mostly just ignoring downvotes.

I too couldn't care less about what two consenting adults get up to though I'll judge them if they don't take very strict measures to prevent accidental pregnancy. Others may judge me for that opinion, but freedom of speech also implies others' freedom of speech to voice their concern with you.

I also think the American sensibilities regarding potentially harmful words or behaviour are stupid, part of my set of "those silly Americans" opinions. Those "this person tweeted some bad joke ten years ago" headlines are depressingly stupid. Luckily, I haven't encountered any such behaviour over here unless it's about celebrities.

If you think your opinion might cost you your job, a) that says a lot about your immediate environment/work culture and b) you can get around that by expressing your opinions under an account that's not directly linked to your name or work. Your opinions about controversial topics and your github username shouldn't be too closely connected if someone malicious might try to use your opinion against you.

Another thing to consider is when to voice your opinion. If someone asks "what do you think about incest" then sure, you should be able to voice your opinion without issue. Sometimes, though, it's best to avoid controversial topics when discussing other topics, even though the two are tangentially related.

I've put up plenty of controversial opinions and I just accept the negative internet points. I've never had crazies go after me other than two or three people pissed off at my opinion that decided to down vote all my post in a thread, which is too sad for me to care about.

Make no mistake, though, the HN hive mind is very much a thing and when you hit certain topics (specific ways of doing business, for example) you can find reasonable posts that go against the flow all the way at the bottom in light grey. You may need to enable showdead to see them (they're not always down voted either, sometimes it's just spam detection making a mistake).

One thing to consider, though, and something I've had to do over time, was to consider the basis of some of your opinions if you find yourself getting down voted across the board. Downvoted comments with no responses are often useless, but when people start stating their reasons then it may be worth to consider them. Everyone else can be wrong, especially inside echo chambers like social media, but it's still worth it to challenge your own position every now and then.

There a lot of thoughtful responses here except they miss the point that having an opinion is useless in almost every case except to make decisions about your own life. You will almost never change anyone's thinking expressing your opinion, and mostly it leads to a pointless debate when expressed publically (online). Just say what your preferences are and maybe why and leave it at that. Essentially no one cares what random people's opinions are.

Like the Taylor Swift song, "Haters gonna hate-hate-hate" no matter what you say or do. Take me for example. I am active on a social media-ish site, on topics about immigration. As you can imagine, the discussions go way beyond expected due to people's strong opinions or what-not. And I am not the one to shut up because someone pesters me. I got doxed by this Indian scumbag, because I told him and thousands of others, how the H-1B visas actually work and why they are nit good in the long run for the US employers and the whole nation in general. He (assuming "he", might be a "her") tried to contact my employer and get me fired from my job. I had a very uncomfortable meeting with my HR rep. Did I stop? No? The scumbag from India? His profile on that site vanished. I think, he pissed off one too many people.

Well as you say, those opinions are likely not held by most others, and you are not wrong about not sharing on social media.

I don't agree with your opinions, quite opposed in fact, and generally if you find that sort of thing attractive in IRL it usually means there is some amount of compensating for something else going on which could be any number of reasons, which we don't need to get into (as that would be unhelpful), its something that generally and helpfully is something to talk through with a qualified professional.

Everyone is entitled to their own evolving opinions as that is a fundamental requirement for intelligent critical thought, and necessary for growth. So long as it does not harm others.

Rather than go into a long diatribe on the dangers of surveillance. I'll just say, you are not wrong.

There is a concerted multi-industry effort to reduce agency, eliminate accountability, and increase corruption under the "We just won't tell them and stonewall" strategy.

What you don't realize is most content online is junk, its not even people. Its orchestrated bots and its a subversive propaganda echo chamber designed with one true purpose; an efficient many to one communication system to interfere with legitimate activities, and cause polarization through the use of psychological blindspots which everyone has.

You may find Cialdini's Influence an interesting read if you are wanting to know more about those blindspots. Once you know their structures, its much simpler to alert on them, when they are being used on you.

One clear sign of propaganda is the use of those blindspots, and that is often coupled with fallacial arguments, or flawed logic; Ethics philosophy courses cover those.

"Adults are responsible enough..."

No they are not.

It's not on the same topics you mentioned, but I feel the same - I don't agree with gender ideology but can't speak about it anywhere online.

I definitely get how you feel about becoming a 'bad guy' if you say anything at all that falls out of line witht the (particularly leftist) hiveminds. One 'wrong' move and you're done.

I feel like there need to be somewhere online that is free speech oriented but not as uncontrolled and downright awful as 4chan is. Some middle ground. I want a place where any opinion whatsoever is permitted, but not any action e.g. still no inciting violence or doxxing people.

Basically we need old reddit back, reddit before it became ridiculously overmoderated. But as long as we are at the behest of advertisers and profits, it's very difficult to make happen on a large scale.

Not to mention network effects that make competition in the social media space incredibly hard. Reddit is open source and you can spin up clone in no time, but very few people are going to use it when the real reddit is still there. What's the point of tweeting to an empty room?

If your hot take is so bad that you can only say it in an empty room without getting dragged, do some introspection.

You might enjoy the ChangeMyView subreddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/ChangeMyView), they have a post relating to gender ideology pretty much every day, it's probably the most popular topic.

Here's the most recent if you want a taster: https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/103dm24/cmv_g...

If you decide to use a throwaway account to avoid being sitebanned on main, I'd recommend commenting something that will get you upvoted to +20 or so first before writing your gender critical opinions, as otherwise you may hit the negative karma threshold for shadowbanning, as those who disagree downvote you.

Also, the OP will probably be interested to know that incest is also a fairly common topic of conversation there.

> Just to give an example, I couldnt care less about people engaging in incest and find it just an old cultural taboo. Adults are responsible enough to know about the dangers of having children and they can do whatever they want.

The problem with incest is that any offspring, and their descendents, suffer the genetic effects of inbreeding.

It's taboo because such pairings are much more likely to produce defective children who will have a lifetime of disability and suffering from genetic disorders.

(This comment is an example of someone engaging with one of your expressed beliefs in a critical yet non-judgemental manner. I think your best bet is to find forums where this type of response is encouraged, and avoid forums where it isn't. And only use throwaway accounts everywhere you leave an opinion, that aren't tied to your real-life identity or to other identities you've established online, as you did with this post.)

My attitude is not that I'm afraid to share my opinions online because of IRL repercussions or getting downvoted, but because I know it's usually a waste of time.

Sometimes it's possible to have a simple and productive discussion online. When it comes to sharing personal political views, realistically nobody cares.

Reddit has "normified" over the years, like most of the Internet. Would the average person on the street have anything to say about the morality of incest? Of course not, and we don't expect them to. You will have to go to specific or niche subreddits to find interesting conversations.

Really? I would very much expect that most people would have a strong negative opinion about the morality of incest.

* anything interesting

I hope this isn't presumptive but I have struggled with mental health for years and one thing I have noticed is my tendency to withdraw and focus on the differences between myself and others. Yes, it seems you have some opinions that are controversial and that I myself don't agree with. But, you probably also have a lot more in common with people than you may be giving yourself credit for. And don't bother trying to figure out which side fits you better - it's a false dichotomy. Yes, there are talking points that are different but when it comes down to it the actual people who control the parties are the same breed.

Nuance is a foreign concept to most on Reddit regardless of what your opinion is; I really wouldn't bother with it for anything of substance. The exception is when you need an answer to a very specific question on one of the niche subreddits.

Why would you want to do that? To vent? Everyone self-censors nowadays you're not alone.

I guess you want to test your opinions against the groupthink and get some feedback, improve or reject them. Well the mainstream internet is not good for that anymore, sorry. Try anonymous chats or even 1-1 chat. It doesnt matter that it is a small group - people are more similar than we think.

Especially on reddit where the remaining small group of unpaid workers who do the moderation have become pretty vicious and use the ban hammer as a de-stress toy.

Opinions are now products

1989: Lurk mode

2022: What mode? - every visit is a tracked transaction

The "open" internet almost feels like a return to AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, etc but worst

I think I need to boot up the old 1983 Apple //e and call it a day

I'm not going to go to deeply into incest, but I will say I think that if you intend on reproducing knowing the increased statistical likelihood that the children will have a significantly poor quality of life due to genetic in-breeding, then you're acting unethically.

That being said, this is my primary hacker news account and it's a throwaway. It allows me to voice dissension where silence might be taken as agreement, while simultaneously reducing my stress level since I never go back and bother to check for replies.

Sounds like you just re-discovered the toaster fucker problem:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667362

The problem with that is there are some things you might be treated like a toaster fucker offline but are not that at all.

For example seeking therapy itself, or going to toastmasters being examples of what idiotic mates might laugh at you for doing.

I think it's interesting that the example you gave (despite being very outside the mainstream) didn't lead to too much side discussion and people mostly spoke to your question. While if you'd used more common example (one of any number of topics that doesn't permit dissent these days) you'd have been flagged into the stone age and had people either feign outrage or condescendingly explain why you're wrong and ignore your question. Ironically, it was a good example.

Why do you assume this? I find it amusing that people 'outrage themselves' by taking something that didn't happen and use it as evidence that the thing that didn't happen would have happened, if the context were slightly different.

Maybe instead of doing that, accept that the thing you expected to happen isn't what people want to do, regardless of if you think they do.

Do you feel the urge to share these opinions in person? If not, why do you feel the urge to do so online? If so, then you can use the same approach you use in meatspace: discretion.

Sharing controversial opinions online feeds the dossiers social networking sites and the like are keeping on you. The wrong subjects will know and judge you.

It's no longer the early 1990s. Back then there were less ties to social bonds in real life.

I think you should follow the same norms on social media as you follow in real life: IE, if you walked into most public places and said (what I won't repeat,) most people will think you're a weirdo and avoid you.

IMO: The biggest difference between now and the 1990s was that oddball discussions, (like that kooky thing I won't repeat,) was that the oddball discussions generally only happened with people who were looking for them. Furthermore, if you were a nutbag, you might get banned from a small message board or dial-up BBS, but you could just move on to another small message board. Places like "the well," Compuserve, and AOL came and went out fashion really fast, so your opportunities to re-establish yourself were frequent.

Now with much larger message boards, it's harder to re-establish yourself every 6 months to a year. (For example, if I repeat what you said in the original post, it'll show up on my Hacker News list of posts. I won't repeat it; but now everyone in Hacker News who wants to learn about your submissions will see your very weird comment above.)

So, do what you do in real life: Read the room, and keep your mouth shut about the topics I won't repeat. Learn to blend in, and learn to find like minds.

This thread was linked from https://rdrama.net/h/slackernews/post/136869/orange-sight-po...

I would say that most big message boards are filled to the brim with psychopathic idiots lusting for an opportunity for a witch hunt gathered around a dumpster fire. It may be fun to pour a bit of gasoline in that fire from time to time and watch the monkey horde go apeshit (yeah, been there, done that)... but in the long run i would stick to smaller communities where you know that you can state controversal opinions.

It also helps to have separate online identities for different things (hey, this was even the case back in the 90s and before).

Well, internet is just.... a mess. Nobody wants to hear anyone and everyone is shouting as loud as they can.

Maybe go on IRC, these guys are more old school, 1990's usenet style. That's where I hang, except this hacker news place, which I don't totally hate yet.

Make close real life friends and share your opinions there ,no body actually care in online world ,it's just one or other kind of echo chamber ,just separate ,online from real world

We do not need every passing thought that skitters across your neurons. We just don't.

If you really want to share this opinion, I'm sure there are forums you could do so on. But not all forums are forums for all opinions.

People focusing on OP's example are missing his point.

There is an issue about opinions, in particular on the internet, where if you do not fit in the "woke" views, you're pretty much going to be bashed.

Then the OP should use a better example if they want to be taken seriously. They say they dont care about incest and then use that as the example of them being attacked. Many people who have had incest did not have it of their own free will. Those people view incest through the lens of rape. Is it unsurprising that they would defend against the idea of incest being normalized?

Right 8-) Incest can be OK, but don't diss on millennials lost in their phones on HN, or you'll find your newly posted comment at the bottom of 6000 other old stale comments...

How can you be scared from sharing opinion and right after openly sharing your opinion? I dont get it.

I mean on your incest example specifically there's an episode of New Amsterdam, a very Liberal show on what I assume is a Liberal channel, which deals with exactly the situation you raise and ends with a fairly "hands off" conclusion, live and let live effectively. As a majority position holder on the topic I find it unsettling but thought provoking.

It's very hard not to assume bad faith on the internet nowadays and the subtext of your post seems to align with the Free Speech position of "I should be able to say whatever I want, wherever and whenever I want, and publishers must platform me and any pushback or negative reaction is dictatorship".

Usually "whatever I want" is some combination of trans, race, class, AGW, right wing moral panic.

I don't know, maybe try sticking to platforms that are open to your 'bold' ideas and don't try and force everyone else to read them without reacting.

Edit: Hackernews is one of those platforms in my opinion. As much as I disagree with many of the moderation decisions I see here (since it requires an almost laughably naive interpretation of people's actions to respond in good faith sometimes and one wonders who benefits) I think this is an appropriate platform for many discussions and the good policy on throwaway accounts means I can express my true views on e.g. abolishing copyright which would be personally and professionally toxic if expressed on e.g. LinkedIn.

Most people are saying "don't share your opinion on this". That's good advice as far as it goes. But my concern is more about shifting sensibilities. What if my opinion expressed today is generally accepted, but tomorrow is generally vilified. What then?

Consider the LGBTQIA+ community. Roughly ten years ago, identifying with the community was generally harmful to your reputation or whatever. Then the supreme court, in 2015, declared gay marriage legal, which was a huge help to the community. Then Trump got elected and things seemed worse than ever. Things have gotten better in the past couple of years. Caveat, I'm not saying identifying with the community is now "generally accepted", this is just a real-world example that is relevant.

So my strategy is

1) avoid posting much on social media. My primary reminder is that "almost no one gives a shit what I think, or at least they shouldn't"

2) have unique email address (via fastmail's Masked Email), unique debit card numbers (via privacy.com), and unique usernames (via 1Password) on every single site.

3) Occasionally abandon a username and start a new one. Oh well my internet points reset but :shrug:

> Roughly ten years ago, identifying with the community was generally harmful to your reputation

Really?!

Why share your opinions on this stuff on social media? What does it matter?

>Just to give an example, I couldnt care less about people engaging in incest and find it just an old cultural taboo. Adults are responsible enough to know about the dangers of having children and they can do whatever they want.

Incest taboos go way, way deeper than cultural hysteresis. There's at least some evidence[0] that humans are biologically programmed to find people they grew up with dramatically unsexy. The people who are angrily shouting at you and calling you disgusting are probably reacting on that same effect.

There's also the tendency of people to publicly denounce their fetishes. Think Christian priests loudly condemning two consenting men for kissing while raping the choir boys in private. Or how 4chan's politics board stuck the word "cuck" on absolutely everything because they wanted to apply porn logic to race relations. I'm not saying every one of those Redditors has an incest fetish, but it's likely that at least some of them do.

That being said... your opinion isn't that fringe? Like, there's a huge gulf from "I don't care about incest" to "dressing as Hitler for Halloween". For me, the former is an "Agree to disagree" thing, while the latter is an "oh my god we need to isolate this person from society before they get power and hurt people" thing. And Reddit is notorious for having really shitty takes and ganging up on people[1]. On the other hand, you're paraphrasing your opinion heavily and it's entirely possible that you've just given yourself the luxury of your own point of view. Like, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you merely had a "meh" opinion on this subject.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

[1] For those who want to compare, Twitter's takes are usually less shitty but they gang up on people way more often. It's the difference between a scorpion and a wasps' nest.

It's even more fun now as previously acceptable views can become retroactively unacceptable, sometimes decades later.

The fact is things like this have happened before ("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"), which is not an excuse or a dismissal; but a comfort: society has had moments of narrow mindedness and has grown through them.

The way you sate your opinion can matter a lot: In your example, your respect for the privacy of others is a positive that can be emphasized; and don't worry about the more provocative stance of "why is incest viewed badly" until you're actually wanting to pick that fight specifically.

unclear what, if anything, you are asking, or what point you are trying to make

I've learned that if you don't have anything nice/constructive to say, better not say it.

Everyone is a dog on the internet. Just don't attach your real name to it.

just share it anonymously, but mind HN is not some tolerant place to express your views which are opposing against supporting The Current Thing, it may look more civilized/polite, but instead of slurs you will just receive here numerous downvotes (I'd like if it would not be possibly to flag submission/comment without publicly stating reason for flagging as anonymous online "heroes" do here) and that's pretty much only difference between Reddit/Twitter and HN

same thing happened to my many years long HN account (downvoting/brigading through history/bots)

personally I couldn't care less about adult incest (it's a bit more tricky between two children/minors), same as I don't care about what homosexuals do in their bedroom, unless both these groups do some pride marches about it and show it in face (same with people showing pride in being obese unable to control own appetite), so my kids can't go in street without seeing obscenities (and same I'd like my kids not seeing heterosexual obscenities in street)

as for Twitter, you can use megablock.xyz to create echo chamber to avoid being harassed, for instance if you don't like Biden and what he represents (like promoting trans thieves as waste experts), go to some of his heavily liked PR team posts on twitter and use megablock to avoid contact with people who are dumb enough to like posts of ANY politician (for me personally as matter of principle I don't "like" anything on twitter for years and if I liked something, then any politician would be the last person to like whether I agree or not with him)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com