4 ms·

I’ve got a really good idea as to how to run a country: 1. Establish a dominant arbiter of fact. 2. Place as it’s head a decidedly odd person with some very cu

I’ve got a really good idea as to how to run a country: 1. Establish a dominant arbiter of fact. 2. Place as it’s head a decidedly odd person with some very curious ideas. 3. Ensure via voting rules that he is accountable to no-one. 4. Allow it a natural monopoly from which it can extract massive rents. 5. Give it surveillance powers unparalleled in human existence. Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Chairman Mao, would have and did kill for this type of power. Instead we have “Zuck”. What a schmuck.

dang 8y ago
Please don't do overwrought political rhetoric here. It lowers the signal-noise ratio, nearly always escalates to flamewar, and isn't necessary to make your substantive point. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- GreeniFi 8y ago
  I appreciate your desire to maintain a civil tone - I’m usually decorous. But what in points 1-5 above is incorrect or overwrought? And what in the comparison?
  - dang 8y ago
    Ok, let's take a look. First of all, when you bring in Idi Amin, Gaddafi, and Mao, all you're doing is ratcheting up inflammation while reducing information—hence what I said about signal/noise. It's just a way of saying "Yuck", like listing a bunch of foods you hate, except with supervillains. You've now limited the range of possible responses to either "omg you said super-evil" or "that's not super-evil", neither of which is ever interesting, and both of which lead to flamewars. Grandiose phrases like "unparalleled in human existence" similarly lower signal-noise ratio, because they turn up the volume without adding information. The "schmuck" thing is name-calling, which the site guidelines ask you not to do. Ditto for the "decidedly odd person" swipe, which is a personal attack. We can argue about whether "Zuck" deserves better, but the community certainly does. Beyond all that, what is the content of the post? You haven't presented any argument about "how to run a country". It's really just rhetoric. I agree with you—most of us do, I'm sure—that the things you listed can have negative consequences in the political sphere. But what those actually are are hard to pin down, and your comment hasn't said anything thoughtful about them.
    - GreeniFi 8y ago
      1. Your point about signal and noise is accepted in principle. 2. However, the relational database which FB has built is “unparalleled in human history” in its scope for surveilling the world. 3. The dictators I name would undoubtedly have been very satisfied to use it. 4. Schmuck is name-calling. But as far as schmuck means contemptible, it’s true. In the race to the bottom to build a low friction, high addiction monopoly social network, Facebook and Zuckerberg are the undisputed kings of the jungle. When the signal is obfuscated by a massive PR and lobbying exercise, then sometimes cutting through that noise to call a spade a spade - or in this case a Zuck a schmuck, is indeed the correct response. I hope this is not a flamewar, but instead see it as my pointing out that metaphor and comparison are rhetorical devices to draw attention to wider truths, and I think that’s fair.

dang 8y ago

Please don't do overwrought political rhetoric here. It lowers the signal-noise ratio, nearly always escalates to flamewar, and isn't necessary to make your substantive point. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

GreeniFi 8y ago
I appreciate your desire to maintain a civil tone - I’m usually decorous. But what in points 1-5 above is incorrect or overwrought? And what in the comparison?
- dang 8y ago
  Ok, let's take a look. First of all, when you bring in Idi Amin, Gaddafi, and Mao, all you're doing is ratcheting up inflammation while reducing information—hence what I said about signal/noise. It's just a way of saying "Yuck", like listing a bunch of foods you hate, except with supervillains. You've now limited the range of possible responses to either "omg you said super-evil" or "that's not super-evil", neither of which is ever interesting, and both of which lead to flamewars. Grandiose phrases like "unparalleled in human existence" similarly lower signal-noise ratio, because they turn up the volume without adding information. The "schmuck" thing is name-calling, which the site guidelines ask you not to do. Ditto for the "decidedly odd person" swipe, which is a personal attack. We can argue about whether "Zuck" deserves better, but the community certainly does. Beyond all that, what is the content of the post? You haven't presented any argument about "how to run a country". It's really just rhetoric. I agree with you—most of us do, I'm sure—that the things you listed can have negative consequences in the political sphere. But what those actually are are hard to pin down, and your comment hasn't said anything thoughtful about them.
  - GreeniFi 8y ago
    1. Your point about signal and noise is accepted in principle. 2. However, the relational database which FB has built is “unparalleled in human history” in its scope for surveilling the world. 3. The dictators I name would undoubtedly have been very satisfied to use it. 4. Schmuck is name-calling. But as far as schmuck means contemptible, it’s true. In the race to the bottom to build a low friction, high addiction monopoly social network, Facebook and Zuckerberg are the undisputed kings of the jungle. When the signal is obfuscated by a massive PR and lobbying exercise, then sometimes cutting through that noise to call a spade a spade - or in this case a Zuck a schmuck, is indeed the correct response. I hope this is not a flamewar, but instead see it as my pointing out that metaphor and comparison are rhetorical devices to draw attention to wider truths, and I think that’s fair.