3 ms·

> The whole message did in fact give an impression of agreement with the quotes, basically as if only those who have bigger risk should have problem with it.

> The whole message did in fact give an impression of agreement with the quotes, basically as if only those who have bigger risk should have problem with it. Op here. Only because you were looking for agreement. And there in lies the flaw. I stated what the filter bubbles exist and offered no opinion. Why? Because its equally as likely to encounter a hoard of people would be looking for me to agree with their point of view, and derail this whole thread if I only talked about how dangerous and problematic covid is. How about we just talk candidly about the different filter bubbles? How would one go about accomplishing that, in your words

acqq 6y ago
I see your account is new. Let me explain, after many years being here, it's completely typical for HN that the posts get downvoted from those who don't share the same point of view, especially if the arguments appear to be weak (e.g. that that action reflects "a strong disagreement"). And there's some logic behind it: the intention is that the "assumed and practiced rules" somehow keep the quality of the discussion high enough. In your case, your post was a typical "low quality" post, having that "Been watching the studies closely though!" line as a (still completely trivial) contribution. On HN such posts aren't rated good, especially not when sandwiched between the claims that those who downvote see as worthless repetition of the common non-arguments. You wroute "it is heavily disputed". Then you wrote "Been watching the studies closely though!" then questioned the source, then used again often heard argument "mild, only divers." That's I personally had the impression you haven't brought any substance to the discussion this time. And it looks to me, you are also not "Op" as it is used here (i.e. you haven posted the link "Lung damage..")

acqq 6y ago

I see your account is new. Let me explain, after many years being here, it's completely typical for HN that the posts get downvoted from those who don't share the same point of view, especially if the arguments appear to be weak (e.g. that that action reflects "a strong disagreement"). And there's some logic behind it: the intention is that the "assumed and practiced rules" somehow keep the quality of the discussion high enough. In your case, your post was a typical "low quality" post, having that "Been watching the studies closely though!" line as a (still completely trivial) contribution. On HN such posts aren't rated good, especially not when sandwiched between the claims that those who downvote see as worthless repetition of the common non-arguments. You wroute "it is heavily disputed". Then you wrote "Been watching the studies closely though!" then questioned the source, then used again often heard argument "mild, only divers." That's I personally had the impression you haven't brought any substance to the discussion this time. And it looks to me, you are also not "Op" as it is used here (i.e. you haven posted the link "Lung damage..")