15 ms·

This is a terrible decision. The tech industry has built powerful tools of social control, and runs vast databases of private data on pretty much everyone in th

This is a terrible decision. The tech industry has built powerful tools of social control, and runs vast databases of private data on pretty much everyone in the country. We have a golden period of forty-some days before a new administration comes to power that has shown every intent of using that information to deport people and create a national Muslim registry. We need to be talking about the political implications of what we've built, and figuring out how to fix our mess. This is like the period before the hurricane: everyone should be busy boarding up windows, and you can't do that if you decide you're just not going to talk about the coming storm because it makes you feel bad.

pdx 10y ago
Back when I was a kid, there was a saying. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death, your right to say it". Of course, now many on the left rejoice in the censoring of all sorts of speech. I find the prevalence and acceptance of these 'crybully' tactics to be much more frightening then the terrible atrocity of actually enforcing existing immigration laws which you appear to fear so much.
- Kaedon 10y ago
  I'm guessing the negative votes have to do with painting a group of people in a casually pejorative way. The left, as a whole, does not rejoice in censoring all sorts of speech. The left is filled with many people with a variety of opinions and many of them value civil liberties as you presumably do.
- bargl 10y ago
  I agree with much of what you said, but the use of the word 'crybully' is why I'd have downvoted you. Also the comment on the -3 points being against the guidelines. If you clean out some of the more inflammatory words, you make a decent point. I agree that censorship should be avoided, and I see a push on the left for censorship. EDIT: I initially said I agree with the tone but that was poor editing on my part.
  - makomk 10y ago
    "Crybully" is a particularly odious piece of political signalling masquerading as an argument, at least in my opinion. The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents, except that it doesn't count because everyone knows that only the "regressive left" are "crybullies".
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents I don't think so: the difference is that the crybully wants to silence his opponent, while the one using the term wants his opponent to stop silencing him. I.e., one wants to suppress liberty and one wants to preserve it. I have no problem with your right to say that I'm wrong, or odious, or that my speech is completely offensive and inimical (although of course I disagree): where I draw the line is if you attempt to silence me altogether.
      - chillwaves 10y ago
        People are not being silenced, they are being judged. Speak your mind, but do not stop us from responding. For one to disagree with your point of view is an affront to your liberty, but the suppression of such disagreement is not an affront to mine?
        wtbob 10y ago
        Suppression of disagreement is exactly what I'm against. You're free to judge, as I wrote, but you're never free to silence. The problem of 'cry-bullies' is that they wish not just to judge, but also to silence.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        I do not have the power to silence you. I doubt anyone in this discussion outside the admins do. I'm not sure how your point is supported by evidence.
- bduerst 10y ago
  It's worth pointing out that I think the tone and out-of-context flaming of your comment is the problem that this entire thread is seeking to resolve, which is why you might have been downvoted.
sillysaurus3 10y ago
It doesn't seem like most people on HN want to be politically active here. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm here to learn new things. And yet, teaching people new things tends to affect the world more than political discussion ever could. I'm happy that HN exists as a solace from the political storm the rest of the world is wrapped up in. Of course politics will affect each of us. But as tptacek is fond of saying, HN can't be all things to all people. It's more important to preserve the spirit of the site than to affect change. (In fact, it seems like one comes at the cost of the other.)
- idlewords 10y ago
  It's weird to talk about the technical aspects of the Zeppelin if you're not allowed to mention the swastika painted on the tail.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    At some point it moves from politics to history. Using facts to discuss the past is not the same as projecting what might happen in the future, or why something in the near past happened, when we don't have nearly enough data to make definitive statements on it. This lack of factual data leads to opinion holding sway, and that leads to inflammatory arguments. Let's not pretend that we can talk about the current political spectrum with anything near the certainty and information we have about Nazi Germany, the economic policies that were involved at the time, the propaganda used, and the world events at the time.
    - tormeh 10y ago
      >At some point it moves from politics to history. Aside from news and politics itself, I can hardly think of anything more political than history. People with different nationalities and sometimes party affiliations usually have wildly different perception of historic facts. Whether the Holocaust happened or not is an obvious and well-publicized one (I believe it did, for the record), but there's an uncountable amount of subtler and/or less famous differences in how humans perceive history.
- 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dkarapetyan 10y ago
Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap. How do you propose to lead constructive discussions around these matters that will lead to actionable items for cleaning up the mess? From what I have seen I don't think HN in its current form is the right forum for those discussions. Even scanning this sub-thread prompted by your comment I'm already starting to see that the discussion seems to be devolving. Here is a group of technologists that could in theory spin up another forum with moderation tools and integration with HN to have back and forth between the two forums based on what "flavor" (political or technical) the discussion was going in and all I see is second-guessing and critiquing with no actionable and constructive items in the mix.
- macrael 10y ago
  idlewords recently organized a meetup to discuss exactly those questions: https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.htm https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.ht...
  - dkarapetyan 10y ago
    This is great. More of this and less mud slinging on HN might actually move the needle.
    - grzm 10y ago
      For comparison, you can view how these very notes were discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270
      - dkarapetyan 10y ago
        I'd rather not. I'm not interested in HNs opinion on those matters. I don't think HN has much to contribute to political discussions honestly. That is why I recommended a side channel for those discussions. Having those discussions in the real world is even better.
salmonet 10y ago
A complete blackout of anything the political community decides is important is strange. I understand the danger of political flame wars, but interesting issues will often become politicized. Climate change and privacy have obviously become political, but that doesn't make those topics less interesting intellectually. edit: grammer
ibejoeb 10y ago
>We have a golden period of forty-some days before a new administration comes to power that has shown every intent of using that information to deport people and create a national Muslim registry. This is why I support a moratorium on politics here. This kind of assumption and hyperbole is really off-putting. I'm happy to debate these topics, but not here. Now, that said, it's going to be a little murky. For example, I want to examine Ed Ou's detention at the US border. What if something breaks about Snowden or Assange? How about net neutrality?
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  The "assumption and hyperbole" you mention is based upon things our president elect has said he will do. I think this is exactly the place to do it as the people who would be involved in its creation are likely here. Where else would be a better place?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    He never said he'd "create a national Muslim registry", (assuming "muslim registry" means "a registry of all muslims); it was just implied that he did. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/... "No, he would not rule out a database on all Muslims. But for now, he wants a database for refugees." And most importantly - it wasn't him that brought up the idea, he was asked this "John F. Kennedy is not a homosexual"-style. The fact that he failed to clarify either way was then reported in ambiguous snippets giving the impression that he had brought this up. Even an insinuation that someone has a connection with an undesirable group apparently makes it legitimate to repeatedly ask them about it. I think such a low-bar to interrogation is not enough; sometime even being repeatedly asked something can give the impression that it might be true (or more likely), "big lie"-style.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  How is it "assumption and hyperbole" to take statements at face value? The incoming administration is on the record with their intents.
flashman 10y ago
Not to mention that "can we please stop with all the politics" is not political neutrality, it's a position that supports the status quo. Silence assists certain forms of repression.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Precisely. When you hear the phrase "can we stop talking about politics" it is almost always coming from the privileged who are benefiting massively from the status quo.
- 3131s 10y ago
  And it's already the case on HN that political discussions are quickly flagged into oblivion, so I'm not sure how this current week will be any different. I was pretty let down that HN did not do more to protect political discussions during the US election cycle and I really didn't see all that much vitriolic behavior in the first place. Even if there is bad behavior though, is that something that we need to be protected from at all times? Maybe it is better to let it happen, point it out when we see it, and then hopefully learn to discuss more civilly as a community in the future.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    A much better course of action would be attempts to improve political discourse, rather than demonize the adjective.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      They've tried, hard, for some time now. Look through dang's and sctb's comment history to see how hard they've tried to improve the discourse.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        I think a reform of the guidelines would be more effective. Not every mod-comment is seen. I also think that specific flags would help, i.e. flag a comment that is against some guideline, with reference to the rule it broke.
ajamesm 10y ago
Imagine HN banning crypto-related discussion for a week after the Snowden revelations, because it was too hard to deal with.
- jdp23 10y ago
  Well, Paul actually did change the ranking algorithm to penalize anything Snowden or NSA-related. He also adjusted the ranking to penalize discussions of TSA policies which directly affect entrepreneurs who have to travel in and to the US. And the discussions at the time were much the same as now - people (including me) saying "hey wait a second these are very much on topic" and others saying "but it makes us uncomfortable to discuss the political aspects of technology, let's pretend it that an arbitrarily-enforced rule of 'no politics' is apolitical"
  - tormeh 10y ago
    I support political discussions, but I also support these weightings. Without them the site would've talked of nothing else. It was a huge amount of stories which all got massive amount of upvotes. I think we should aim for reasonable ratios. Maybe we should have an algorithm that categorized stories and tried to create a certain ratio of tech:politics:curiosities:startups, for example?
ucarion 10y ago
This moratorium will only last a week. I think our discourse will survive. Though political discussion is essential, I think you'd agree it has downsides when there's too much of it or when everyone considers it high-stakes. The way I see it, the mods are asking us all to hold our political tongues and see what the comments feel like. They're very clear that it's an experiment. Maybe when politics resume seven days from now, people will remember what quality discourse looks like. This is mods trying to keep the conversation good.
- saalweachter 10y ago
  But politics is high-stakes. How could it be otherwise? It is deciding what we, as a people, want to be.
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    Some people have more at stake than others.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  It will only last a week... a week in which the president-elect is meeting with some top Silicon Valley people. And a week in which any discussion or stories about that will be conveniently automatically off-topic.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    Write it up as an article with proof or a convincing argument. Submit it and it'll be front page on HN pretty quick.
  - dang 10y ago
    Obviously that's a pure coincidence. The idea that HN moderators have prior information about presidential meetings is (from where I sit) completely silly, and certainly totally wrong.
    - 10y ago
olalonde 10y ago
And this type of comment is precisely why I support a ban on political discussion on HN. You're just preaching to the choir. I've read this same comment in one form or another for hundreds, if not thousands of times on HN. If anything, a dissenting opinion (e.g. one in favor of Trump or the NSA) could add something new to the conversation but it would get down voted to hell and get ugly pretty fast.
- cinquemb 10y ago
  >If anything, a dissenting opinion (e.g. one in favor of Trump or the NSA) could add something new to the conversation but it would get down voted to hell and get ugly pretty fast. I'll take the bait. About a little of a year ago, when I worked in a lab, some of my colleagues routinely laughed and mocked Trump and boasted how he had no chance in hell (as well as fueling fire with continued patronage of sites and news that gave them more of the same "entertainment" [in their words]), and no amount of me pointing out to them the environment that enabled a such a persona to exist/rise to fame/power should be the topic of conversation rather than on the team $x circus ring leader de jour. From where I stand, the problem with a ban on political discussion isn't really the content of it, just the intellectual naivety that one can shield themselves political discussion while ignoring all the not so hidden influences of such on ones culture, thought processes, and etc is laughable will only end in rude awakenings, because in reality such a ban can only be superficial, and never really cut to the heart of such issues that underpin political discussion. Like another commentator said: "Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap" and I'd add that superficial bans to hide or sideline political discussion, are can be incredibly expensive (filter bubbles, walled gardens, deep packet inspections, paid "moderators", "cultural fit" selectors) in the search of temporarily being in control, yet ultimately futile.
  - postcarnival 10y ago
    the ultimate safe-space
jpdus 10y ago
This! HN is one of the few places where informed discussion is actually possible and even opposing views (as long as they are objective and well reasoned) are adding to the discussion (and often upvoted). Shutting that off just because of some unfounded downvotes or trolling in times where such discussions are extremely important is cowardly and a very sad move in my opinion. HN is better (and more important) than you think.
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  also it is hard to define the boundaries of 'political discussions'. A lot of events in the tech world have political implications - examples like data retention policies/what data is gathered at all. In any event its an editorial decision: HN is a medium/tool of ycombinator and they decided that this is necessary in order to preserve its value.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
You can't bully people into caring about things, sorry. Most people here would rather talk about solar power or functional programming than the political implications of whatever, and trying to guilt them into cooperation is just going to make them crankier.
- 3131s 10y ago
  Nobody is asking them to participate in these discussions. I could not care less about anything posted to HN relating to Windows or MacOS, but I wouldn't downvote those posts just because I personally have no interest in them.
nneonneo 10y ago
I don't mean to offend, but I think that this is not a rational comment. I think it illustrates my point that rational discourse can rapidly become irrational when politics get involved. Again, I stress that this is why I am strongly in favor of a moratorium on politics on HN. You express a fear that Trump is going to somehow strongarm, subpoena, or otherwise force tech companies to roll over and give over private data on every Muslim in the US. Notwithstanding the massive technical challenge involved there, I'm fairly certain such a request would be met with significant opposition at some stage - from judicial challenges, to company refusal, to public backlash. It simply is not a situation that can reasonably happen (especially quietly), no matter how loudly Trump might yell about it. Additionally, you must keep in mind that a sizeable fraction of the population had very similar fears (re: gun control, healthcare, socialism, etc.) when Obama was elected in 2008. These folks were scared of what Obama would do based on what he promised to do. In the end, checks and balances won out, and Obama didn't end up doing many of the things he promised to do. (He's still a great president, though - in my opinion of course). It's normal to be scared in these times, but it's not a good idea to lose your head. Trump can say a lot of terrible, terrible things - people are literally entitled to say whatever they want in this country - but if you rationally analyze the feasibility of his plans you'll realize that most of them aren't actually doable. And, you may also realize that some of his plans are even good for the country - for example, infrastructure spending is a proven way to improve the economy, and it is something that the US quite desperately needs (see: John Oliver). Now, I shouldn't need to say this on a forum like this, but I am by no means a fan of Trump. I think that his rhetoric is dangerous, but he _is_ going to be president, and that means working with him to establish the best policies and compromises going forward, rather than stubbornly refusing outright to work with him.
- postcarnival 10y ago
  Thank you for taking the words out of my mouth, except that I have confidence in Trump and his ability to lead our nation. Remember, Peter Thiel is on his transition team...
- atmosx 10y ago
  I think it's not about politics specifically. All social sciences can get quickly irrational because they're not mathematised. Every one of us is subjective to framing. You can argue that e.g. "Obama was a great president!" or that "Obama was an awful president!" and there are arguments to back both sides of the discussion depending on where you're coming from.
benevol 10y ago
Since Snowden's intervention we know that technology is being used to aggressively lay the foundation of a (future? potential?) totalitarian regime. How can technology be separated from the subject of power when the future of democracy in the most powerful nation in the World is at stake?
_postcarnival 10y ago
> This is like the period before the hurricane: everyone should be busy boarding up windows, and you can't do that if you decide you're just not going to talk about the coming storm because it makes you feel bad. lol wait what? everything you just said is purely subjective opinion, not fact.
hypertexthero 10y ago
Unfortunately, if you're not turned onto politics, politics will turn on you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dvbM6Pias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dvbM6Pias

pdx 10y ago

Back when I was a kid, there was a saying. "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death, your right to say it". Of course, now many on the left rejoice in the censoring of all sorts of speech. I find the prevalence and acceptance of these 'crybully' tactics to be much more frightening then the terrible atrocity of actually enforcing existing immigration laws which you appear to fear so much.

Kaedon 10y ago
I'm guessing the negative votes have to do with painting a group of people in a casually pejorative way. The left, as a whole, does not rejoice in censoring all sorts of speech. The left is filled with many people with a variety of opinions and many of them value civil liberties as you presumably do.
bargl 10y ago
I agree with much of what you said, but the use of the word 'crybully' is why I'd have downvoted you. Also the comment on the -3 points being against the guidelines. If you clean out some of the more inflammatory words, you make a decent point. I agree that censorship should be avoided, and I see a push on the left for censorship. EDIT: I initially said I agree with the tone but that was poor editing on my part.
- makomk 10y ago
  "Crybully" is a particularly odious piece of political signalling masquerading as an argument, at least in my opinion. The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents, except that it doesn't count because everyone knows that only the "regressive left" are "crybullies".
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents I don't think so: the difference is that the crybully wants to silence his opponent, while the one using the term wants his opponent to stop silencing him. I.e., one wants to suppress liberty and one wants to preserve it. I have no problem with your right to say that I'm wrong, or odious, or that my speech is completely offensive and inimical (although of course I disagree): where I draw the line is if you attempt to silence me altogether.
    - chillwaves 10y ago
      People are not being silenced, they are being judged. Speak your mind, but do not stop us from responding. For one to disagree with your point of view is an affront to your liberty, but the suppression of such disagreement is not an affront to mine?
      - wtbob 10y ago
        Suppression of disagreement is exactly what I'm against. You're free to judge, as I wrote, but you're never free to silence. The problem of 'cry-bullies' is that they wish not just to judge, but also to silence.
        chillwaves 10y ago
        I do not have the power to silence you. I doubt anyone in this discussion outside the admins do. I'm not sure how your point is supported by evidence.
bduerst 10y ago
It's worth pointing out that I think the tone and out-of-context flaming of your comment is the problem that this entire thread is seeking to resolve, which is why you might have been downvoted.

sillysaurus3 10y ago

It doesn't seem like most people on HN want to be politically active here. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm here to learn new things. And yet, teaching people new things tends to affect the world more than political discussion ever could. I'm happy that HN exists as a solace from the political storm the rest of the world is wrapped up in. Of course politics will affect each of us. But as tptacek is fond of saying, HN can't be all things to all people. It's more important to preserve the spirit of the site than to affect change. (In fact, it seems like one comes at the cost of the other.)

idlewords 10y ago
It's weird to talk about the technical aspects of the Zeppelin if you're not allowed to mention the swastika painted on the tail.
- kbenson 10y ago
  At some point it moves from politics to history. Using facts to discuss the past is not the same as projecting what might happen in the future, or why something in the near past happened, when we don't have nearly enough data to make definitive statements on it. This lack of factual data leads to opinion holding sway, and that leads to inflammatory arguments. Let's not pretend that we can talk about the current political spectrum with anything near the certainty and information we have about Nazi Germany, the economic policies that were involved at the time, the propaganda used, and the world events at the time.
  - tormeh 10y ago
    >At some point it moves from politics to history. Aside from news and politics itself, I can hardly think of anything more political than history. People with different nationalities and sometimes party affiliations usually have wildly different perception of historic facts. Whether the Holocaust happened or not is an obvious and well-publicized one (I believe it did, for the record), but there's an uncountable amount of subtler and/or less famous differences in how humans perceive history.
10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dkarapetyan 10y ago

Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap. How do you propose to lead constructive discussions around these matters that will lead to actionable items for cleaning up the mess? From what I have seen I don't think HN in its current form is the right forum for those discussions. Even scanning this sub-thread prompted by your comment I'm already starting to see that the discussion seems to be devolving. Here is a group of technologists that could in theory spin up another forum with moderation tools and integration with HN to have back and forth between the two forums based on what "flavor" (political or technical) the discussion was going in and all I see is second-guessing and critiquing with no actionable and constructive items in the mix.

macrael 10y ago
idlewords recently organized a meetup to discuss exactly those questions: https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.htm https://sfbay.techsolidarity.org/2016/11/28/meeting_notes.ht...
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  This is great. More of this and less mud slinging on HN might actually move the needle.
  - grzm 10y ago
    For comparison, you can view how these very notes were discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085270
    - dkarapetyan 10y ago
      I'd rather not. I'm not interested in HNs opinion on those matters. I don't think HN has much to contribute to political discussions honestly. That is why I recommended a side channel for those discussions. Having those discussions in the real world is even better.

salmonet 10y ago

A complete blackout of anything the political community decides is important is strange. I understand the danger of political flame wars, but interesting issues will often become politicized. Climate change and privacy have obviously become political, but that doesn't make those topics less interesting intellectually. edit: grammer

ibejoeb 10y ago

>We have a golden period of forty-some days before a new administration comes to power that has shown every intent of using that information to deport people and create a national Muslim registry. This is why I support a moratorium on politics here. This kind of assumption and hyperbole is really off-putting. I'm happy to debate these topics, but not here. Now, that said, it's going to be a little murky. For example, I want to examine Ed Ou's detention at the US border. What if something breaks about Snowden or Assange? How about net neutrality?

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
The "assumption and hyperbole" you mention is based upon things our president elect has said he will do. I think this is exactly the place to do it as the people who would be involved in its creation are likely here. Where else would be a better place?
- Chris2048 10y ago
  He never said he'd "create a national Muslim registry", (assuming "muslim registry" means "a registry of all muslims); it was just implied that he did. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/... "No, he would not rule out a database on all Muslims. But for now, he wants a database for refugees." And most importantly - it wasn't him that brought up the idea, he was asked this "John F. Kennedy is not a homosexual"-style. The fact that he failed to clarify either way was then reported in ambiguous snippets giving the impression that he had brought this up. Even an insinuation that someone has a connection with an undesirable group apparently makes it legitimate to repeatedly ask them about it. I think such a low-bar to interrogation is not enough; sometime even being repeatedly asked something can give the impression that it might be true (or more likely), "big lie"-style.
ajamesm 10y ago
How is it "assumption and hyperbole" to take statements at face value? The incoming administration is on the record with their intents.

flashman 10y ago

Not to mention that "can we please stop with all the politics" is not political neutrality, it's a position that supports the status quo. Silence assists certain forms of repression.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Precisely. When you hear the phrase "can we stop talking about politics" it is almost always coming from the privileged who are benefiting massively from the status quo.
3131s 10y ago
And it's already the case on HN that political discussions are quickly flagged into oblivion, so I'm not sure how this current week will be any different. I was pretty let down that HN did not do more to protect political discussions during the US election cycle and I really didn't see all that much vitriolic behavior in the first place. Even if there is bad behavior though, is that something that we need to be protected from at all times? Maybe it is better to let it happen, point it out when we see it, and then hopefully learn to discuss more civilly as a community in the future.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  A much better course of action would be attempts to improve political discourse, rather than demonize the adjective.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    They've tried, hard, for some time now. Look through dang's and sctb's comment history to see how hard they've tried to improve the discourse.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      I think a reform of the guidelines would be more effective. Not every mod-comment is seen. I also think that specific flags would help, i.e. flag a comment that is against some guideline, with reference to the rule it broke.

ajamesm 10y ago

Imagine HN banning crypto-related discussion for a week after the Snowden revelations, because it was too hard to deal with.

jdp23 10y ago
Well, Paul actually did change the ranking algorithm to penalize anything Snowden or NSA-related. He also adjusted the ranking to penalize discussions of TSA policies which directly affect entrepreneurs who have to travel in and to the US. And the discussions at the time were much the same as now - people (including me) saying "hey wait a second these are very much on topic" and others saying "but it makes us uncomfortable to discuss the political aspects of technology, let's pretend it that an arbitrarily-enforced rule of 'no politics' is apolitical"
- tormeh 10y ago
  I support political discussions, but I also support these weightings. Without them the site would've talked of nothing else. It was a huge amount of stories which all got massive amount of upvotes. I think we should aim for reasonable ratios. Maybe we should have an algorithm that categorized stories and tried to create a certain ratio of tech:politics:curiosities:startups, for example?

ucarion 10y ago

This moratorium will only last a week. I think our discourse will survive. Though political discussion is essential, I think you'd agree it has downsides when there's too much of it or when everyone considers it high-stakes. The way I see it, the mods are asking us all to hold our political tongues and see what the comments feel like. They're very clear that it's an experiment. Maybe when politics resume seven days from now, people will remember what quality discourse looks like. This is mods trying to keep the conversation good.

saalweachter 10y ago
But politics is high-stakes. How could it be otherwise? It is deciding what we, as a people, want to be.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Some people have more at stake than others.
ubernostrum 10y ago
It will only last a week... a week in which the president-elect is meeting with some top Silicon Valley people. And a week in which any discussion or stories about that will be conveniently automatically off-topic.
- aaron695 10y ago
  Write it up as an article with proof or a convincing argument. Submit it and it'll be front page on HN pretty quick.
- dang 10y ago
  Obviously that's a pure coincidence. The idea that HN moderators have prior information about presidential meetings is (from where I sit) completely silly, and certainly totally wrong.
  - 10y ago

olalonde 10y ago

And this type of comment is precisely why I support a ban on political discussion on HN. You're just preaching to the choir. I've read this same comment in one form or another for hundreds, if not thousands of times on HN. If anything, a dissenting opinion (e.g. one in favor of Trump or the NSA) could add something new to the conversation but it would get down voted to hell and get ugly pretty fast.

cinquemb 10y ago
>If anything, a dissenting opinion (e.g. one in favor of Trump or the NSA) could add something new to the conversation but it would get down voted to hell and get ugly pretty fast. I'll take the bait. About a little of a year ago, when I worked in a lab, some of my colleagues routinely laughed and mocked Trump and boasted how he had no chance in hell (as well as fueling fire with continued patronage of sites and news that gave them more of the same "entertainment" [in their words]), and no amount of me pointing out to them the environment that enabled a such a persona to exist/rise to fame/power should be the topic of conversation rather than on the team $x circus ring leader de jour. From where I stand, the problem with a ban on political discussion isn't really the content of it, just the intellectual naivety that one can shield themselves political discussion while ignoring all the not so hidden influences of such on ones culture, thought processes, and etc is laughable will only end in rude awakenings, because in reality such a ban can only be superficial, and never really cut to the heart of such issues that underpin political discussion. Like another commentator said: "Talk is cheap and political discussion is especially cheap" and I'd add that superficial bans to hide or sideline political discussion, are can be incredibly expensive (filter bubbles, walled gardens, deep packet inspections, paid "moderators", "cultural fit" selectors) in the search of temporarily being in control, yet ultimately futile.
- postcarnival 10y ago
  the ultimate safe-space

jpdus 10y ago

This! HN is one of the few places where informed discussion is actually possible and even opposing views (as long as they are objective and well reasoned) are adding to the discussion (and often upvoted). Shutting that off just because of some unfounded downvotes or trolling in times where such discussions are extremely important is cowardly and a very sad move in my opinion. HN is better (and more important) than you think.

MichaelMoser123 10y ago
also it is hard to define the boundaries of 'political discussions'. A lot of events in the tech world have political implications - examples like data retention policies/what data is gathered at all. In any event its an editorial decision: HN is a medium/tool of ycombinator and they decided that this is necessary in order to preserve its value.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

You can't bully people into caring about things, sorry. Most people here would rather talk about solar power or functional programming than the political implications of whatever, and trying to guilt them into cooperation is just going to make them crankier.

3131s 10y ago
Nobody is asking them to participate in these discussions. I could not care less about anything posted to HN relating to Windows or MacOS, but I wouldn't downvote those posts just because I personally have no interest in them.

nneonneo 10y ago

I don't mean to offend, but I think that this is not a rational comment. I think it illustrates my point that rational discourse can rapidly become irrational when politics get involved. Again, I stress that this is why I am strongly in favor of a moratorium on politics on HN. You express a fear that Trump is going to somehow strongarm, subpoena, or otherwise force tech companies to roll over and give over private data on every Muslim in the US. Notwithstanding the massive technical challenge involved there, I'm fairly certain such a request would be met with significant opposition at some stage - from judicial challenges, to company refusal, to public backlash. It simply is not a situation that can reasonably happen (especially quietly), no matter how loudly Trump might yell about it. Additionally, you must keep in mind that a sizeable fraction of the population had very similar fears (re: gun control, healthcare, socialism, etc.) when Obama was elected in 2008. These folks were scared of what Obama would do based on what he promised to do. In the end, checks and balances won out, and Obama didn't end up doing many of the things he promised to do. (He's still a great president, though - in my opinion of course). It's normal to be scared in these times, but it's not a good idea to lose your head. Trump can say a lot of terrible, terrible things - people are literally entitled to say whatever they want in this country - but if you rationally analyze the feasibility of his plans you'll realize that most of them aren't actually doable. And, you may also realize that some of his plans are even good for the country - for example, infrastructure spending is a proven way to improve the economy, and it is something that the US quite desperately needs (see: John Oliver). Now, I shouldn't need to say this on a forum like this, but I am by no means a fan of Trump. I think that his rhetoric is dangerous, but he _is_ going to be president, and that means working with him to establish the best policies and compromises going forward, rather than stubbornly refusing outright to work with him.

postcarnival 10y ago
Thank you for taking the words out of my mouth, except that I have confidence in Trump and his ability to lead our nation. Remember, Peter Thiel is on his transition team...
atmosx 10y ago
I think it's not about politics specifically. All social sciences can get quickly irrational because they're not mathematised. Every one of us is subjective to framing. You can argue that e.g. "Obama was a great president!" or that "Obama was an awful president!" and there are arguments to back both sides of the discussion depending on where you're coming from.

benevol 10y ago

Since Snowden's intervention we know that technology is being used to aggressively lay the foundation of a (future? potential?) totalitarian regime. How can technology be separated from the subject of power when the future of democracy in the most powerful nation in the World is at stake?

_postcarnival 10y ago

> This is like the period before the hurricane: everyone should be busy boarding up windows, and you can't do that if you decide you're just not going to talk about the coming storm because it makes you feel bad. lol wait what? everything you just said is purely subjective opinion, not fact.

hypertexthero 10y ago

Unfortunately, if you're not turned onto politics, politics will turn on you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dvbM6Pias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dvbM6Pias