Our engineers deliver concise outputs because we have settled internally that that's what we want. Fluffy verbosity serves no one if there's little signal in there, so just give me the no-purple prose, no emojis, tight and concise bullet version without all the chaff.
Check out my post history. I use this account to comment on politically hot topics on HN, and my highest scoring comment was removed, in fact the entire thread of that comment is gone.
Was it because I broke some rule, or was it because someone didn't like what I said?
Accounts that have been created to do that are low-quality accounts that soon accrue moderation penalties and eventually get banned—not because we disagree with the politics but because this is the main form of flamewar destroying this site. HN is a place for intellectual curiosity and curious conversation. If you want to do ideological warfare on the internet, that's a different game and you need to play it elsewhere.
Your comment didn't get removed. It did get detached from its original parent. That's standard moderation when the top comment gets replies that don't respond specifically to what it says (a.k.a. topjacking).
Coca-Cola, the company that intimidates, kidnaps, tortures and murders union leaders in South America. The company that over-exploits and destroys natural resources in India. The company that routinely does business with dictators and avoids taxes and sanctions.
That's the virtuous company putting pressure on Facebook to tackle "hate speech" during election year in the US. i.e. stop opponents of the far-left.
I don't think people would have a problem with this if the political public squares (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc) - and that IS what they are - applied these policy changes to everyone equally.
What's happened is we've already gone over the edge. Racism has been redefined to only be effectively possible by white people in the West. The intention of this change is racist in itself.
Putting aside freedom of speech, what people likely have a problem with is all the OTHER racists on YouTube NOT getting banned and instead being PROPPED UP.
These bans are political, not civil justice. If these racists were A) a real problem, and B) not singled out as a faction among multiple other racist factions, then people might believe this is fair.
To those that contend that criteria A has been met: The modern rise of white supremacists in the West is being spurred by racist politics; it's almost as if they want to corner these people into extremist ideas.
I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism, and that's by understanding the root causes of it and addressing them.
These bans are a farce, and meant to consolidate far-leftist power - not liberal power.
> I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism
For those who are unfamiliar, Davis is a black American who has directly befriended and changed the minds of a number of Ku Klux Klan members. He has a collection of their former robes that serve as trophies. In my view, he's a stunning role model.
He is definitely an inspiring story, but I wouldn't call him a role model. It is not the burden of each person who is a minority to befriend those who hate them, and his approach is undeniably a dangerous one.
I get the impression that your comment is trying to paint any retaliation against racism online as itself a racist act. Is this right? It's hard to tell between the meaningless platitudes and strawmen you've set up for yourself.
I read your comment and wrestled with the dilemma of making the effort to rebut vs just down-voting you and walking away.
Firstly, your comment contains a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion.
"...we've already gone over the edge". What edge?
"Racism has been redefined...". Where? By whom?
"The intention of this change is racist in itself". Who's intention? The 'racism redefiners'? If they're a large group, how can they all have a unified intention? Is there some manifesto you can point to, or something that exposes the 'intention'?
"What people likely have a problem with...". The use of the word 'likely' tells me you're just guessing here.
"...all the OTHER racists". This implicitly acknowledges the banned people mentioned are in fact racists, but it sounds like you're defending these racists by pointing out that there are different racists being treated differently. "Stop picking on OUR racists! There's some other racists over there too!".
"These bans are political...". How are these political? Do you have any data to show that takedowns vs takedown requests vary significantly by political view.
"If these racists were A) a real problem...". If racism is a problem, and these people are racist, then by definition, these racists are a problem. Given you've acknowledged (implicitly above) that these people are racists, then you must be suggesting that racism isn't a real problem.
"...singled out...". Do you have evidence that no other 'factions' (to use your word; I'd say 'flavours') of racists have not been taken down? Remember, some being left up doesn't mean that none have been taken down.
"...then people might believe this is fair". While I'm sure some people don't believe this is fair (you might be one of them), do you have any evidence to show that this is a commonly held view?
"The modern rise of white supremacists in the West is being spurred by racist politics; it's almost as if they want to corner these people into extremist ideas." This has to be one of the most atrocious arguments I've ever heard. Let's leave aside that the racist roots behind many political groups (e.g. Klan, Nazis) go back decades if not way into the 19th century. Your argument here is like saying that a rise in domestic violence is being spurred by feminist ideas.
"...they want to corner these people into extremist ideas". No one is making racists more extreme. Racist ideas and 'theories' (to the extent that these exist in any cogent form), are largely unchanged over time. What has happened is that the bulk of western society has been, and continues to, redefine what is 'acceptable'. Racists now (like chauvinists) find themselves on the other side of a shifting boundary. No one has 'cornered' them, they just haven't moved while society has.
"I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism". Good. His approach is centered on educating racists. However this approach is not at all at odds with blocking hate speech from virtual 'town squares' (which are actually 'corporate plazas').
"... meant to consolidate far-leftist power". Firstly, to consolidate power, the far-leftists would need to be in power. Manifestly untrue. Secondly, unless the Communist Party of America are still alive and kicking, there is NO party that I'm aware of that would be considered far-left by any reasonable person outside of the US (where political definitions are so skewed they no longer make sense).
I'd also point out that the fact you are using a throwaway account to post makes me doubt that you have any intention of engaging honestly on this subject.
It's clear that woke culture is driving people to stop engaging with it, as many of us here have probably also done in the name of preserving our mental health.
What I'm questioning is, what happens when everyone just stops fighting it? Do people think they can out-vote it?
It has control over academia (with STEM fields barely holding on), the major tech corporations, mainstream culture, and soon politics. This isn't an endorsement of Trump, I'm just stating facts.
All I see here is people saying "man, social media is really unhealthy smh" and no one seems to realize that they are willingly vacating all of the platforms where they can oppose what they deem to be unhealthy.
On Hacker News I still see people debating things like the handling of the coronavirus, the BLM movement, and other politically charged issues. I see some comments that make me angry, but mostly I either agree or disagree. I think it's quite well balanced and civil. I really like the moderation here, and I like that most people are willing to approach others' opinions with sincerity.
With the current trend, how long will that realistically last? Now that mainstream news, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit are falling to toxic ideology, coercion and censorship, what's to stop it from happening here too?
I agree.
It's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
Ethics is the one field in which you shouldn't be unwilling to listen to counterviews because the premise of the field itself is so subjective.
reply