
Scientists and doctors warn of potential serious health effects of 5G - zerogvt
https://web.archive.org/web/20191002000712/https://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/
======
zerogvt
I don't understand why such an important appeal/topic touching on public
health was flagged the previous time I tried to post it here. Gagging
views/research does not put this community in a very good light and it is
something way beneath the standards I've seen in the few years I've been
participating here.

Now - there was another similar topic a few days ago that was focusing though
on the views of a single scientist that has been painted by many as a crook.
This topic is about an appeal that has a lot more signatories to be dismissed
lightly.

Thanks

PS: Flagged again. OK - seems that the admins here are on somebody's payroll.

~~~
dang
Users flagged it. Moderators never touched it or even saw it. Probably users
flagged it because a closely related story was on the front page all day:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21310867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21310867).
Follow-up or copycat submissions aren't exactly dupes, but people read HN for
topics they haven't seen recently, and HN basically never wants two front page
submissions about the same thing.

Your comment breaks the site guidelines against insinuating astroturfing
without evidence. A story getting flagged is evidence of nothing other than
that users flagged the story. Admins conspiring to suppress it? that is pure
imagination, and it's pretty nasty to imagine something about someone and then
accuse them of being paid to do evil. The guidelines exist to prevent HN from
degenerating that way, so please read and follow them when posting here from
now on:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

~~~
zerogvt
So, you're telling me that watchdogs users (on a payroll I'll add) roam this
site and flag anything that they don't like and that is OK for you. Super.

The post on front page was focusing on what a single scientist was saying.
This particular scientist has been attacked and defamed repeatedly which in
effect rendered _that_ post ineffective to base a serious conversation for
that issue. TLDR, people (and keen watchdogs alike) were focusing on _him_
rather than the issue at hand. Which is why I posted the appeal, signed by
numerous other scientists, so that the discussion won't focus on the strawman
scientist and focus on what might be a hugely important public health issue.

Of course the watchdogs on duty flagged it immediately because it was much
harder to attack and defame.

I've said it again. You have a problem in HN. Mobs and lone rangers and
downvote armies. You might be innocent (as an admin) and try to let everyone
speak but it is evident to me that nothing that _really_ matters can be
discussed in this community. That is because things that _really_ matter hurt
some big pockets or a few cretins stuck in their adolescent rigid worldviews.
In any case the gist of it is that the rules of the site allow them to drown
any voice they don't like in a form of public opinion manipulation.

So, thanks for the hospitality all these months. I think I've no business
here.

~~~
dang
There are no "watchdogs on duty" or "on a payroll". Users see submissions and
flag ones that they think shouldn't be on HN.

In this case your submission was, though not the identical article, exactly
the same topic as another submission which was one of the most prominent
stories of the day (the third most, in fact:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2019-10-21](https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2019-10-21)).
The natural place to add additional links and make the argument that
discussion shouldn't center around a single researcher, would have been as a
comment in that thread. Posting a new submission about amounted to a dupe,
which fragments discussion, so there's an easy good-faith interpretation for
why users might have flagged it. Note that the site guidelines ask people here
to " _Assume good faith._ "
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).
That's because the downsides of assuming bad faith are orders of magnitude
worse for the site than the downsides of assuming good faith.

