Essentially yes. Certain users are flagging because they don't want any discussion related to DOGE on HN. See for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43036254.
There is no running away from certain conversations, especially when your information ecosystem is intentionally made partisan. The flavor of american political discourse is architechtured to achieve very clear rhetorical and emotional goals.
At best, HN can choose how it wants to handle the schism. For that everyone needs to realize it is coming.
Are you talking about HN or the constitution and our resultant system of government?
> In the span of just weeks, the US government has experienced what may be the most consequential security breach in its history
Which is a ridiculous level of hyperbole and just factually not even close to accurate. Solarwinds, the 2014 OPM breach, snowden leaks, chelsea manning leaks, the DNC email leak, moonlight maze - there's a massive list of real, consequential security incidents that are nowhere nearly as bad as Elon and whatever his dumb team are doing.
There are any number of places people can talk about this but the same is true of literally anything that gets discussed here. What value does HN ever add? What's ever the benefit of sharing something here?
Personally speaking this is the number one place I want to see these conversations happen because I have a deep respect for the technical understanding of my peers here. It's disturbing that at such an important juncture in history so many people are jumping up to say "go elsewhere, there's nothing of value for you here."
I have been looking for such a post since last week!
And this is hacker news, the exact site that is absolutely about this. We haven't even gotten to the part where people see the actual code that has been slung around here.
Here is a quote from NPR:
"The USDS launched in 2014 by the Obama administration in the aftermath of the botched rollout of HeathCare.gov as an office to boost the digital capabilities of the federal government. It has operated like a digital strike team of sorts, recruiting private sector experts in design and technology to work collaboratively with federal agencies on projects that make public-facing parts of the government more efficient, modern and user-friendly."
Link: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/29/nx-s1-5270893/doge-united-sta...
See, they said the FRAMEWORK was created by Obama.
In these cases, just jump to the end, and if possible go a step further. The Dems couldn't be corrupt efficiently! They created this framework, and didn't use it to drain the swamp?? See, the dems are always wrong.
(Underlying any such point is an emotional fear, that the country was brought to the bring by liberals and democrats. This is what is actually triggering the nation wide fight or flight response. Address this)
As you pointed out, they made this Framework, They had it since the Obama era! And they never used it like Trump/Musk are.
What fools! IF they had, who knows where we might be today.
(Things are really dire when I need to make a 2nd amendment appeal as a metaphor for a government system).
These discussions are not about logic or facts. They are about emotions and content.
Most people are arguing from conclusions.
I won’t go into why “the dems are wrong” is a conclusion, or why it’s so common - it’s just got that feel of being right.
But by jumping to the end, there’s a chance to break the endless cycle of arguments online. Or at least have some fun with it.
When you jump to the end, the current argument is the same as the conclusion, creating cognitive dissonance, and often forcing the brain to actually engage to understand what’s going on.
In your example - you are saying that the dems were good. They didn’t use the knife to kill.
This only leads to more argument. Consensus depends on the other side agreeing that not killing people is good.
Which they can’t, because - see point 1. Arguing from conclusions.
So they will be forced to take more complex positions, carve out exceptions and generally create frustration.
well, I'm a democrat but I never cared much for "hurting people's feelings" on the internet when I'm simply posting comparisons and links. I purposely try to involve as little of the user into my arguments as possible: I'm attacking their argument, not them.
I'm ultimately to others, a piece of text on the internet with a semi-anonymous handle. There is very little I can do to cheer people up. It is a magnitude harder to make people happy on the internet than making people mad. I'm already at a disadvantadge by not having a face attached to my words.
>it’s just got that feel of being right.
Likewise, I don't stop at "it feels right" when I scrutinize myself. I introspect and say "why do I feel good/bad from this" and I've overtime gotten good at elaboring on my feelings. Sometimes I even defuse myself when I realize my feelings aren't rational. I don't like riling myself up over trivial issues. Not when theres so many non-trivial issues in my life to deal with.
>In your example - you are saying that the dems were good. They didn’t use the knife to kill.
I never explicitly said the dems were good. But yes, the assumption from many people are "making food and clothes is good. This is a good tool". But the knife is a tool and a tool is as good as its weilder. Whether it was effective is a much ore subjective argument.
>This only leads to more argument. Consensus depends on the other side agreeing that not killing people is good.
Well those are not people I engage in discussion with. I know these topics are polarized but I still am trying to maintain the ethos of HN in exploring curiosity. People who simply want to preach is not someone to see curiosity from. Likewise, a closed mind with their conclusion set is not someone who's ready to discuss.
It seems to be decreasing as of late. But I "discussed" on Reddit for years and year, and even on 4chan. It's like a gold rush, but reading those few times where you actually convince someone, you get convinced of a point, or you simply have an insightful comment chime in does give me hope in discussions like this.
Why? What are you fundamentally working towards?
Is it to argue for your own benefit? If so then this makes sense.
If it is to convince the other person, then what matters is understanding them and how to get to them.
>It seems to be decreasing as of late.
You seem like a person who aims to be thoughtful. I will speak from my own actions - I anticipated and called this escalation out, probably a decade ago by now.
I am not very smart. If this is obvious to me, it should be obvious to any other thinking person, perhaps after moving some assumptions around.
This is how I work to continue to communicate and uphold my principles, in an environment that is changing.
If something ceases to work, and to repeat the behavior, is .. well its many things, but lets call it frustrating.
So I ask again - what is the point? You end with the goal of convincing someone.
I won't urge you to use my techniques, or my crack brained approach.
But is it fair to point out to you - that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, that people are increasingly immunized to our typical attempts at reason?
If you agree so, and if you also believe in the spirit of inquiry, the search for truth and the pursuit of progress (lots of "ifs"), then would it be a stretch to say new tools, approaches are needed?
(Side note - I read tons of stuff on misinformation, indoctrination, and communities. So I am not exactly completely flying high without a tether)
The questions include: is the strike team in question being transparent, is it violating any laws, is it protecting data in the way the law requires, is the team composed of people who have been vetted at a level corresponding to the access they've been granted, are any of them potentially compromised or plausibly so, does anyone on the team have conflicts of interest, is there oversight and auditability of their actions?
The reason, I think, these are good questions is simply that these are things we should demand of our public servants, regardless of political affiliation.