4 ms·

Rampant shadow-banning on HN if you comment on immigration or terrorism or Net-Neutrality that the PC crowd doesn't agree to. I am sure this comment will only

Rampant shadow-banning on HN if you comment on immigration or terrorism or Net-Neutrality that the PC crowd doesn't agree to. I am sure this comment will only be seen by me, only through this browser. Peter Thiel or Sam Altman speak for free speech, yet HN comment auditors keep using their jurisdiction in deciding what is OK and what is not. Lot of work that engineers do and then social operatives hijack the work and enforce their agenda on top of that engineering work. I have no clue how they feel being American, operating on American soil, under the protection of American law enforcement, and at the same time stopping American people from having a discussion, that too after specifically creating a platform for that very reason... to have a public discussion. This is same crowd that gets angry when ISPs want to kick out a packet that the ISP doesn't like, but are super comfortable blocking, hiding and in case of reddit even editing user's comments. How they are able to hold this cognitive dissonance in their head at the same time is beyond me. I am sure nobody will read this but at least I said it. Hi, HN auditors, have a wonderful day full of opportunities to ban users and comments, enjoy!!!

whatyoucantsay 9y ago
I suspect this was killed more for striking too close to home than for tone. It reminds one of this passage: > "The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous. The irony of Galileo's situation was that he got in trouble for repeating Copernicus's ideas. Copernicus himself didn't. In fact, Copernicus was a canon of a cathedral, and dedicated his book to the pope. But by Galileo's time the church was in the throes of the Counter-Reformation and was much more worried about unorthodox ideas."
Cryptid 9y ago
>I am sure this comment will only be seen by me, only through this browser. hi! Since your model has led you to an incorrect conclusion, are you going to revise it?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Yes, the model now stands as: Comments are machine flagged but manually scanned and allowed/not-allowed based on audit approval. Audit approval is not only limited to unlawful content (as it should be) but political correctness approval of "Political Officers" similar to those in Soviet era. There is shadowban for showing the comments from a user, as I have seen my comments not show up when the page is accessed without being logged in through another machine, or mobile phone. Am I wrong?

whatyoucantsay 9y ago

I suspect this was killed more for striking too close to home than for tone. It reminds one of this passage: > "The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous. The irony of Galileo's situation was that he got in trouble for repeating Copernicus's ideas. Copernicus himself didn't. In fact, Copernicus was a canon of a cathedral, and dedicated his book to the pope. But by Galileo's time the church was in the throes of the Counter-Reformation and was much more worried about unorthodox ideas."

Cryptid 9y ago

>I am sure this comment will only be seen by me, only through this browser. hi! Since your model has led you to an incorrect conclusion, are you going to revise it?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Yes, the model now stands as: Comments are machine flagged but manually scanned and allowed/not-allowed based on audit approval. Audit approval is not only limited to unlawful content (as it should be) but political correctness approval of "Political Officers" similar to those in Soviet era. There is shadowban for showing the comments from a user, as I have seen my comments not show up when the page is accessed without being logged in through another machine, or mobile phone. Am I wrong?