> there are insidious groups trying to game the system at HN (and elsewhere) to push their narratives.
This sort of perception is common and has been common on HN for well over a decade, but I've rarely seen any evidence to support it. What there is evidence for—plenty of it—is users with different backgrounds misperceiving each other's comments as astroturfing/shilling/etc. because they simply can't imagine anyone holding those other views in good faith.
The odds are high that this is what you're encountering. It's not some shady misinformation group; it's simply people with very different backgrounds than your own, who hold opposite views for legit reasons, just like you hold your own views for legit reasons. These are difficult historical topics that there's no consensus on.
Here are a couple of long explanations I posted about this in the past:
The Minority Rule, often associated with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, refers to a principle in which a small, intransigent minority can have a disproportionate impact on the behavior of a larger group, eventually leading the majority to adopt the preferences or practices of that minority. This occurs because the minority is highly committed to a particular preference or practice and is unwilling to compromise, while the majority is more flexible and willing to accommodate the minority's demands to avoid conflict or inconvenience.
Key Points of the Minority Rule:
Intransigence: The minority is unwavering in its position and refuses to accept alternatives.
Flexibility of the Majority: The majority is more flexible and often prefers to avoid confrontation or inconvenience, leading them to adopt the minority's preference.
Asymmetric Impact: Even though the minority is smaller, its rigid stance can lead to a situation where the majority conforms to the minority's preferences.
Examples:
Cultural Practices: In a mixed group, if a small number of individuals strictly follow a particular dietary rule (e.g., kosher or halal), the larger group might choose to accommodate these restrictions, leading to everyone adopting the more restrictive practice.
Regulations and Standards: Sometimes, a regulation or standard that applies to a small subset of people (e.g., accessibility requirements) becomes the norm for everyone because it’s easier or more efficient to have a single standard.
Implications:
The minority rule highlights how committed minorities can exert significant influence over larger groups, often shaping social norms, practices, and even laws. This can be both positive (e.g., ensuring certain ethical standards) and negative (e.g., stifling diversity of thought or practice).
Nice writeups. While most of your reasoning/logic are valid i think you are missing a few crucial viewpoints which should be incorporated into your "HN filtration and decision-making" process.
I presume you know of Nassim Taleb's "The Minority Rule", if not see his article The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority - https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... and video explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwlW2aamDFc Any system can be gamed by an intransigent group by applying this rule under the guise of victimhood/false equivalence/even-handedness/appeal to authority/religion/PC/DEI/etc. Various language techniques like phrasing/tone/insinuation/instigation/support/oppose/etc. can be used to lead/sway/hint/push towards the group's viewpoint irrespective of Truth/Reality. In today's world all Human topics involve Politics/Propaganda/Manipulation/Spin/Gaslighting/etc. whether we like it or not. The effects of "events" (eg. HN comments) in these domains are non-linear (pareto/power law/etc.) and hence a single outlier can ruin everything i.e. you don't need an actual "shady misinformation group".
I am not sure how HN does its moderation but i can guarantee that the above is happening in one form or another. I have seen this in threads to do with Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Palestine issue, Boeing issues etc.
As an example, you say; "These are difficult historical topics that there's no consensus on." which is factually incorrect given the wikipedia links i had posted. You have been manipulated to disregard Truth in the guise of even-handedness :-)
You realize I belong to an Ahmedi family? What kind of insidious “ingroup” is that in Pak context? Please tell that to any Pakistani who will collapse in peals of laughter.
If you want to talk down to someone who was born and brought up as one that’s your prerogative but you’re the one who’s looking stupid. Yes, your spelling is the “official” one.
This sort of perception is common and has been common on HN for well over a decade, but I've rarely seen any evidence to support it. What there is evidence for—plenty of it—is users with different backgrounds misperceiving each other's comments as astroturfing/shilling/etc. because they simply can't imagine anyone holding those other views in good faith.
The odds are high that this is what you're encountering. It's not some shady misinformation group; it's simply people with very different backgrounds than your own, who hold opposite views for legit reasons, just like you hold your own views for legit reasons. These are difficult historical topics that there's no consensus on.
Here are a couple of long explanations I posted about this in the past:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35932851 (May 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 (June 2021)
You'll find links here to many years' worth of other explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
If you read some of those explanations and still have a question that I haven't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at answering it.