Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjkaminski | Hacker News Reader

Ok. Show your work.

Which social network has larger reach than X? Which social network has stronger influence on humans who make policy decisions than X?

Which internet provider can deliver reliable access to remote regions than Starlink? Which internet provider has manipulated access in contested regions than Starlink?

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't know. What I do know is that your baseless assertions are meaningless to me. Show the facts and figures that support your claims. That's the only way to avoid being a garden-variety internet troll.

View on HN

How do you define "reach" and "influence"?

Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube all have more users, more daily active users, more aggregate data transferred.

Excellent question. My definition is admittedly qualitative. I spend a fair bit of time listening to commentary by people who are connected to policy decisions at the state and federal level (in the USA). An unusual amount of people admit to relying upon X as their barometer of public sentiment, despite their intellectual understanding that Elon Musk has his thumb on the scale. Most of them have admitted they understand the "water has been poisoned" but they also claim that all alternatives are inferior. This might not apply to YouTube as much as the others, but I haven't seen evidence that disproves this theory. I'm open to the possibility, for sure. This said, I believe that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok have a profound affect on large swaths of the population. The evidence I observe suggests that X is doing more work among the people who can text someone who makes decisions. Curious to know more about your POV. What am I missing?

Those are silly questions entirely irrelevant to the point above.

How so? Defend your position.

(edit: I genuinely don't understand how your replies are anything other than ad hominem attacks. Your responses are about as effective as a toddler asking "why?" over and over and over again. Either deliver a substantive counter argument or stop replying.)

(edit 2: I assume you are the one who downvoted this reply. That only adds to the factual evidence that you are struggling to defend your position via legitimate means. This isn't a personal attack. I hoped you would engage in legitimate discourse. Please do better in the future.)

Ad hominem would be if the GP was making a personal attack on you. Saying a question is "silly" is not that.

Downvoting can also mean that the downvoter doesn't think it's worth the time to engage with prose. It's a bit arrogant to assume that a downvote means someone can't come up with a cogent argument against you; the fact that you make that assumption points even more strongly at the idea that it's not worth arguing with you.

Fair points.

I would say that classifying an argument as "silly" without any supporting evidence is borderline ad hominem because it doesn't make a substantive critique of the assertion, and instead colors the character of the opposition. But that shouldn't take away from your position.

As for your suggestion that I am being arrogant, I can see where you're coming from but I also feel as though I'm within the bounds of fairness to push for a reasoned response (instead of an emotional appeal).

All that said, thanks for replying in a way that advances the discourse. Much appreciated.

You assume incorrectly. I flagged your comment for breaking site guidelines, not downvoted. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how the site works but it's not possible to downvote a reply to one's own comment. The button isn't there.

Okay, how did I break the guidelines per your assessment? I'm genuinely curious.

Why does Starlink matter in a Conversation about X?

Because they are both part of the SpaceX Company. They are intimately tied together.

Only in financial word games, not technically.

> Which internet provider can deliver reliable access to remote regions than Starlink?

Why do remote regions matter? No one relevant lives there.

lololol. Obviously you don't know any Ukranians.

> lololol. Obviously you don't know any Ukranians.

Please take a step back and remember that your original claim was "a massive percentage of the population accessed the internet (via starlink)"

That's demonstrably false. It's a small percentage. Even in Ukraine. You're now moving the goalposts.

No, I did not claim "a massive percentage of the population accessed the internet (via starlink)". Try again.

I said that people in REMOTE regions, by which I mean those who are underserved by traditional internet access such as fiber or coax or twisted-pair, are served by Starlink in significant numbers.

Please give demonstrable facts that dispute this claim if you disagree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com