Reddit won't interfere with users revolting against X with subreddit bans
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
You're letting the owner (or your hatred of the owner) define who you're willing to listen to. That seems rather unwise.
Also, we implicitly make these choices all the time, by not listening to Fox, or Pravda, or Al Jazeera or a host of channels, by chosing not to pay, not to bypass the pay wall.
I do not disagree that it seems extreme. It's dichotomous behaviour to me. But, it's human, and normal. I don't personally think everyone who remains on X is evil or against my world view. I just find I'm happier off it and ignoring it.
(I'm sure you know this. I'm not trying to school you, we're just making observations from different sides of the fence but the fence is there and we're in agreement about that if nothing else)
Deplatforming completely failed in preventing the rise of the right wing over the past two administrations; if anything, it reinforced their delusions of persecution, strengthening them. And now that the leftists are on the back foot, deplatforming is going to be even less effective. It's just doubling down on a losing strategy.
That being said, I'm all in favor of blocking X links as HN submissions anyway. They almost always seem to be off topic or low value.
Is it delusion anymore if you're systematically barred from everywhere? The Twitter Files also exist, showing active government-driven censorship efforts.
Twitter seems an MMORPG, anyway; nonessential, possibly entertaining but with a lot of idling, and ultimately a waste of time. Privatizing public services for profit doesn't feel in line with what I understand to be a healthier path, that of public luxury, private sufficiency.
I have no idea whether this occurred through engineering incompetence or as an attempt to strong-arm people into creating accounts, but it hardly matters; either way, links to x.com are nearly worthless.
reddit also has an incentive to keep people on the platform as much as possible so subreddits choosing to ban X links will likely only be a net positive for the site's engagement and ad views.
Sure, it is. Unless you are a fairly new user, the 'flag' link is right there under the title.
I have no idea what dang / YC feels about the choice to flag every link to twitter. Maybe they would offer new guidance to us all if everyone started doing it. It is their site, after all.
But barring that, yes, HN absolutely has user-driven moderation where we all can make that choice.
And I truly have mixed feelings about this all. Shutting down every link seems extreme when it is an individual person who has crossed the line. But when that person owns and controls the tone of the site... we need to ask ourselves whether we are trying to stifle their hate speech or just being vindictive to someone who is offensive?
Now though, it might be too late to do much by whether or not any of us use his platform, as he can just lie about its popularity and vote in other ways with his many dollars. Depending on what enough of us actually want for our future and that of the next hundred generations of humans, there are other actions to consider.
Move fast and break things?
From what I can tell, there are a number of metrics at play from account age, IP address, account history, pattern recognition like up voting or flagging rings. I'm not sure to the extent it is largely rule based or data driven, I think dang probably keeps it opaque to prevent workarounds from knowing how the system works.
HN has a pretty "IBM During Nazi Germany" vibe.
x.com → xcancel.com