3 ms·

I wouldn't be so sure of that. State actors do an OK job of keeping their prints off of things. What bugs me are silent downvotes. If someone disagrees, grea

I wouldn't be so sure of that. State actors do an OK job of keeping their prints off of things. What bugs me are silent downvotes. If someone disagrees, great! Tell me why. Being quietly zapped into invisibility just feels like cowardly thought-policing.

dang 7y ago
> State actors do an OK job of keeping their prints off of things No doubt they do. What are our options? We can fantasize about this and project our fantasies onto other users—or we can look for some sort of evidence, any evidence, before making claims. If you want to believe in diabolical state actors manipulating the community and leaving no trace whatsoever, how could that ever be falsified? The only thing you have to go by in that case are your own assumptions and preconceptions. On HN, we choose the other fork of that branch and look for evidence. I'm not saying the bar is high, but there needs to be something. In the absence of any evidence at all, the HN guidelines ask users not to post insinuations about astroturfing, foreign spies, etc. Someone else holding an opposing view does not count as evidence. There is an epidemic of internet madness about this right now, and it's not in the values of this site to succumb. Perhaps everywhere else wants to be James Jesus Angleton in the wilderness of mirrors, but HN, barring catastrophic failure, is not going to go there. As for silent downvotes, I realize they sting and are annoying, but that's the way HN works. Users aren't required to explain why they downvote. If we had such a requirement, the threads would fill up with 10x the petty bickering about downvotes, and we have more than enough of that already. The thing to do with downvotes is to examine what you wrote to see what might have been objectionable about it. If you notice something, note the correction for next time. If you notice nothing, muse to yourself about the fickleness of homo internetus and move on. It's not worth posting about, which is why the HN guidelines ask you not to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  "the only thing you have to go by in that case are your own assumptions and preconceptions" dang, you are not the only dude here who went to college. In my own case, all I can say is that I have "seen some shit", and I would not feel totally comfortable or assured that this was all purely the result of personal, unpaid, opinions.
  - dang 7y ago
    Educational credentials weren't on my mind. The point is this: if you have evidence, let's hear about it. If you don't, then please follow the site guidelines and refrain from making insinuations about astroturfers, shills, or spies. Someone else having an opposing view does not count as evidence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mytailorisrich 7y ago
I am also very annoyed by silent downvotes but can tell you that they definitely go both ways. People are too quick in blaming "paid trolls" or "state actors" when it's most likely good old 'keyboard warriors' from both sides.

dang 7y ago

> State actors do an OK job of keeping their prints off of things No doubt they do. What are our options? We can fantasize about this and project our fantasies onto other users—or we can look for some sort of evidence, any evidence, before making claims. If you want to believe in diabolical state actors manipulating the community and leaving no trace whatsoever, how could that ever be falsified? The only thing you have to go by in that case are your own assumptions and preconceptions. On HN, we choose the other fork of that branch and look for evidence. I'm not saying the bar is high, but there needs to be something. In the absence of any evidence at all, the HN guidelines ask users not to post insinuations about astroturfing, foreign spies, etc. Someone else holding an opposing view does not count as evidence. There is an epidemic of internet madness about this right now, and it's not in the values of this site to succumb. Perhaps everywhere else wants to be James Jesus Angleton in the wilderness of mirrors, but HN, barring catastrophic failure, is not going to go there. As for silent downvotes, I realize they sting and are annoying, but that's the way HN works. Users aren't required to explain why they downvote. If we had such a requirement, the threads would fill up with 10x the petty bickering about downvotes, and we have more than enough of that already. The thing to do with downvotes is to examine what you wrote to see what might have been objectionable about it. If you notice something, note the correction for next time. If you notice nothing, muse to yourself about the fickleness of homo internetus and move on. It's not worth posting about, which is why the HN guidelines ask you not to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jstewartmobile 7y ago
"the only thing you have to go by in that case are your own assumptions and preconceptions" dang, you are not the only dude here who went to college. In my own case, all I can say is that I have "seen some shit", and I would not feel totally comfortable or assured that this was all purely the result of personal, unpaid, opinions.
- dang 7y ago
  Educational credentials weren't on my mind. The point is this: if you have evidence, let's hear about it. If you don't, then please follow the site guidelines and refrain from making insinuations about astroturfers, shills, or spies. Someone else having an opposing view does not count as evidence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mytailorisrich 7y ago

I am also very annoyed by silent downvotes but can tell you that they definitely go both ways. People are too quick in blaming "paid trolls" or "state actors" when it's most likely good old 'keyboard warriors' from both sides.