9 ms·

I generally agree with the author's sentiment regarding "the Old Internet". However, using "voat" and "thank goodness" in the same breath raised a red flag for

I generally agree with the author's sentiment regarding "the Old Internet". However, using "voat" and "thank goodness" in the same breath raised a red flag for me about the author and their motives. They mentioned being kicked off raddle.me for posting links to their site (the one that's currently linked to on the top of the HN homepage); maybe that was with good reason and not a result of gatekeeping? For example, from _Men and Women and Marriage_: > In contrast, from what I've observed of women's behavior, most women marry for money. Some of them marry several times for money. You see, women understand why marriage exists. It exists to ensure that women will be provided for while they raise their children. This is why so many marriages are dissolved after the children leave home. From the woman's perspective: no more children, no more reason to be married. Perhaps, in addition to the conveniences, opportunities (learning, employment and otherwise), etc. the "New Internet" has afforded us, making this sort of trash harder to find is a bit of silver lining.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
robotstate 7y ago
The way you're just completely proving his point is amazing.
- ChristianBundy 7y ago
  Voat is a breeding ground and gathering place for white supremacists. A small selection of the top posts on Voat right now: - "jew politician calls for war on whites" -> http://magaimg.net/img/9f2p.png http://magaimg.net/img/9f2p.png - "NFL player's wife accuses Dolphins owner of favoring 'Jew buddies'" -> https://www.timesofisrael.com/nfl-players-wife-accuses-dolphins-owner-of-favoring-jew-buddies/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/nfl-players-wife-accuses-dolph... - "Everything's about race. Every single thing is about race. Remember that it's all about race, everything. All of it." -- member-only discussion - "Voat in a nutshell" -> https://files.catbox.moe/se4iny.jpg https://files.catbox.moe/se4iny.jpg
  - anon9001 7y ago
    What those people really need is to have their opinions challenged by outsiders. That used to happen more on the early internet. Keep in mind that they didn't leave Reddit because they wanted to leave. They left and made Voat because they were banned. Now they don't have to interact with people that have dissenting opinions, and they can ban you if you dissent. Reddit is relieved because their users are no longer exposed to this toxicity. Unfortunately, now those users are no longer exposed to anything but toxicity.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      Subjecting people to the degrading and hateful ideas that target them for the sake of the well-being of the people spewing it is not an equitable proposition. You can go to voat and debate white supremacists tho.
      - anon9001 7y ago
        > Subjecting people to the degrading and hateful ideas that target them for the sake of the well-being of the people spewing it is not an equitable proposition. Is that really true on the internet? "Subjecting people" makes it sound so extreme. In reality, all you had to do was hide a few subreddits and you'll never see them again. They were already removed from the frontpage well before any casual user would encounter them. So by "subjecting people", I don't think you honestly mean subjecting the community to those people. I think you mean that you want to shame the service provider into de-platforming them because you disagree with their views. You weren't going to see their content on reddit anyway, except due to reddit outrage about how that content was ever allowed on their service. You'd only find a lot of the things that were banned if you knew where to look. > You can go to voat and debate white supremacists tho. I didn't interact with them when I was on Reddit, and I don't care to now. But at least they were in a space where they were frequently challenged by people who did feel like debating them. If you don't want to interact with them, you're free to ignore them. That's why I think it's such a small ask and net good to not de-platform unpopular opinions.
hnzix 7y ago
Can you please link to the list of Empirically Correct Viewpoints™ so that I can identify and purge myself of thoughtcrimes?
- fortran77 7y ago
  Let me guess! It's probably something like this: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct
- cortesoft 7y ago
  They aren't thought crimes, but they are views that will get you ostracized... and they should. The rule is fairly simple, and does not require a list; if you believe that someone should have a different set of rules and expectations just because of a characteristic outside or their control, that is not acceptable.
  - hnzix 7y ago
    Dividing the discourse into Correct people and The Others Who Shall Be Shunned is exactly the kind of binary thinking that is killing rational discourse. You are never going to change someone's mind by shouting at them.
    - tjpnz 7y ago
      It kills far more than rational discourse. People have had their careers and lives ruined over what somebody else deems to be wrongthink.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Are you suggesting that there are NO viewpoints that are worth rejecting out of hand? If someone thinks that all black people should be killed, we need to entertain his views? There are limits, and some views are not just a difference of opinion. Some viewpoints need to be shunned.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. What serves the value of the site is rather to ignore provocation and invest energy in what's intellectually interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
fortran77 7y ago
So because you don't like some of their content it's a "good thing" that it's hard to find on the Internet? I guess I miss the old internet, too.
- tw04 7y ago
  Because it’s ridiculously inaccurate, sexist, and full of pointless hate. Whether he likes or dislikes it, the world was a better place when people were shamed into keeping ridiculous ideas like that to themselves.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Go into pre-"web" USENET archives and tell me that you don't find inaccurate, sexist, and hateful rants. And most people there were easily identified.
grrowl 7y ago
I was very much on-board with his message until he brought up voat and raddle existing, "Thank goodness". Oh dear.
- walrus01 7y ago
  "Hello? Whole man disposal services? Do you offer same day pickup?"
insickness 7y ago
It's far trashier to dig through a person's history to find the most risque tidbit you can in order to disqualify everything he is saying.
anon9001 7y ago
Congratulations! Your personal values are presently inline with corporate values. The world's largest moderators have you in mind when they're removing content. That must be great for you, because your experience is tailored for your personal satisfaction. And if you ever do happen upon something that offends you, you can report it and rest assured that corporate america will take care of it for you. Now imagine you have a deeply held belief, and suddenly, it's been canceled. Your content has been banned, even though you made some well-received things. What do you do? Where do you go? Maybe you just give up on that belief, replace it with the new corporate belief, and move on. But some years tick by, and now you find that all of your old beliefs have been canceled. Have you assimilated and given up contact with people that talk about canceled ideas and share canceled content? That's what you should have done. That's why our corporate monoculture is so harmonious. This is a wonderful thing... right? If you're not ok with that, then maybe you need to get onboard with platforms that allow alternative opinions, because you might need one some day.
- rhodo 7y ago
  Not hating women == corporate shill. Nice.
- pgcj_poster 7y ago
  Umm… raddle.me literally used to have "Made with [U+262D: hammer and sickle]" in the footer of every page. It's an explicitly far-left, anti-corporate, alternative platform.
rcoveson 7y ago
I went and read _Men and Women and Marriage_. It didn't strike me as a hate piece. It's the kind of thing that I could see some version of myself writing as an angsty teenager with a Mormon upbringing that was extremely focused on gender roles. Multiple comments on this sub-thread have gone as far as accusing the author of "hate". The parent comment stops at "this sort of trash". I don't think that the authors of these comments would use those words if they heard this piece in person from the author, in an environment where they could question its more extreme assertions. Perhaps this person has themselves been through (or had a close friend go through) a bad divorce, and is simply venting under the guise of philosophical ramblings. It's totally natural to project your personal experience on the rest of the world in this way. It's something people have to be trained not to do. We seem to be in the habit of turning our ire all the way up as soon as somebody barely crosses some invisible threshold of harmful opinion. That habit makes us a lot less effective at communicating. If it weren't for the article title and excerpt, I would assume from some of the commentors that this person had written a piece calling for wives-as-property or genocide or something. There's just no way to tell if it's all "trash" and "hate". Isn't there such a thing as a poorly-written post with vaguely sexist undertones that _isn't_ an atrocity?
dang 7y ago
That would be a horrible comment to post here, but please don't do the internet thing of bringing the worst thing someone said (or the worst you can find) into an HN thread in order to make that be the topic instead. This is not the way to improve signal/noise ratio or serve intellectual curiosity on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

robotstate 7y ago

The way you're just completely proving his point is amazing.

ChristianBundy 7y ago
Voat is a breeding ground and gathering place for white supremacists. A small selection of the top posts on Voat right now: - "jew politician calls for war on whites" -> http://magaimg.net/img/9f2p.png http://magaimg.net/img/9f2p.png - "NFL player's wife accuses Dolphins owner of favoring 'Jew buddies'" -> https://www.timesofisrael.com/nfl-players-wife-accuses-dolphins-owner-of-favoring-jew-buddies/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/nfl-players-wife-accuses-dolph... - "Everything's about race. Every single thing is about race. Remember that it's all about race, everything. All of it." -- member-only discussion - "Voat in a nutshell" -> https://files.catbox.moe/se4iny.jpg https://files.catbox.moe/se4iny.jpg
- anon9001 7y ago
  What those people really need is to have their opinions challenged by outsiders. That used to happen more on the early internet. Keep in mind that they didn't leave Reddit because they wanted to leave. They left and made Voat because they were banned. Now they don't have to interact with people that have dissenting opinions, and they can ban you if you dissent. Reddit is relieved because their users are no longer exposed to this toxicity. Unfortunately, now those users are no longer exposed to anything but toxicity.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    Subjecting people to the degrading and hateful ideas that target them for the sake of the well-being of the people spewing it is not an equitable proposition. You can go to voat and debate white supremacists tho.
    - anon9001 7y ago
      > Subjecting people to the degrading and hateful ideas that target them for the sake of the well-being of the people spewing it is not an equitable proposition. Is that really true on the internet? "Subjecting people" makes it sound so extreme. In reality, all you had to do was hide a few subreddits and you'll never see them again. They were already removed from the frontpage well before any casual user would encounter them. So by "subjecting people", I don't think you honestly mean subjecting the community to those people. I think you mean that you want to shame the service provider into de-platforming them because you disagree with their views. You weren't going to see their content on reddit anyway, except due to reddit outrage about how that content was ever allowed on their service. You'd only find a lot of the things that were banned if you knew where to look. > You can go to voat and debate white supremacists tho. I didn't interact with them when I was on Reddit, and I don't care to now. But at least they were in a space where they were frequently challenged by people who did feel like debating them. If you don't want to interact with them, you're free to ignore them. That's why I think it's such a small ask and net good to not de-platform unpopular opinions.

hnzix 7y ago

Can you please link to the list of Empirically Correct Viewpoints™ so that I can identify and purge myself of thoughtcrimes?

fortran77 7y ago
Let me guess! It's probably something like this: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct
cortesoft 7y ago
They aren't thought crimes, but they are views that will get you ostracized... and they should. The rule is fairly simple, and does not require a list; if you believe that someone should have a different set of rules and expectations just because of a characteristic outside or their control, that is not acceptable.
- hnzix 7y ago
  Dividing the discourse into Correct people and The Others Who Shall Be Shunned is exactly the kind of binary thinking that is killing rational discourse. You are never going to change someone's mind by shouting at them.
  - tjpnz 7y ago
    It kills far more than rational discourse. People have had their careers and lives ruined over what somebody else deems to be wrongthink.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that there are NO viewpoints that are worth rejecting out of hand? If someone thinks that all black people should be killed, we need to entertain his views? There are limits, and some views are not just a difference of opinion. Some viewpoints need to be shunned.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. What serves the value of the site is rather to ignore provocation and invest energy in what's intellectually interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

fortran77 7y ago

So because you don't like some of their content it's a "good thing" that it's hard to find on the Internet? I guess I miss the old internet, too.

tw04 7y ago
Because it’s ridiculously inaccurate, sexist, and full of pointless hate. Whether he likes or dislikes it, the world was a better place when people were shamed into keeping ridiculous ideas like that to themselves.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Go into pre-"web" USENET archives and tell me that you don't find inaccurate, sexist, and hateful rants. And most people there were easily identified.

grrowl 7y ago

I was very much on-board with his message until he brought up voat and raddle existing, "Thank goodness". Oh dear.

walrus01 7y ago
"Hello? Whole man disposal services? Do you offer same day pickup?"

insickness 7y ago

It's far trashier to dig through a person's history to find the most risque tidbit you can in order to disqualify everything he is saying.

anon9001 7y ago

Congratulations! Your personal values are presently inline with corporate values. The world's largest moderators have you in mind when they're removing content. That must be great for you, because your experience is tailored for your personal satisfaction. And if you ever do happen upon something that offends you, you can report it and rest assured that corporate america will take care of it for you. Now imagine you have a deeply held belief, and suddenly, it's been canceled. Your content has been banned, even though you made some well-received things. What do you do? Where do you go? Maybe you just give up on that belief, replace it with the new corporate belief, and move on. But some years tick by, and now you find that all of your old beliefs have been canceled. Have you assimilated and given up contact with people that talk about canceled ideas and share canceled content? That's what you should have done. That's why our corporate monoculture is so harmonious. This is a wonderful thing... right? If you're not ok with that, then maybe you need to get onboard with platforms that allow alternative opinions, because you might need one some day.

rhodo 7y ago
Not hating women == corporate shill. Nice.
pgcj_poster 7y ago
Umm… raddle.me literally used to have "Made with [U+262D: hammer and sickle]" in the footer of every page. It's an explicitly far-left, anti-corporate, alternative platform.

rcoveson 7y ago

I went and read _Men and Women and Marriage_. It didn't strike me as a hate piece. It's the kind of thing that I could see some version of myself writing as an angsty teenager with a Mormon upbringing that was extremely focused on gender roles. Multiple comments on this sub-thread have gone as far as accusing the author of "hate". The parent comment stops at "this sort of trash". I don't think that the authors of these comments would use those words if they heard this piece in person from the author, in an environment where they could question its more extreme assertions. Perhaps this person has themselves been through (or had a close friend go through) a bad divorce, and is simply venting under the guise of philosophical ramblings. It's totally natural to project your personal experience on the rest of the world in this way. It's something people have to be trained not to do. We seem to be in the habit of turning our ire all the way up as soon as somebody barely crosses some invisible threshold of harmful opinion. That habit makes us a lot less effective at communicating. If it weren't for the article title and excerpt, I would assume from some of the commentors that this person had written a piece calling for wives-as-property or genocide or something. There's just no way to tell if it's all "trash" and "hate". Isn't there such a thing as a poorly-written post with vaguely sexist undertones that _isn't_ an atrocity?

dang 7y ago

That would be a horrible comment to post here, but please don't do the internet thing of bringing the worst thing someone said (or the worst you can find) into an HN thread in order to make that be the topic instead. This is not the way to improve signal/noise ratio or serve intellectual curiosity on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html