4 ms·

HN should take down this post. The country has been heavily polarized into two sections (pro-bjp and against-bjp) with both the sections heavily incentivised by

HN should take down this post. The country has been heavily polarized into two sections (pro-bjp and against-bjp) with both the sections heavily incentivised by the "IT" deptt of respective political parties. Very few will talk about the actual issue and most of the comments will be rhetorical, only focusing on what they believe is right.

ashleshbiradar 6y ago
this post is from a reputed source, I see no reason why it should be taken down. As far as I am concerned, this is not a subjective thing, the crack down on Amnesty International in the country is not subject to individual opinions.
- malware7 6y ago
  It just happens that the "reputed source" itself is under question for source of their funding. What you consider reputed is your opinion, not a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_Internati...
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    Wikipedia is not a good source for anything remotely controversial at this time. One of the founders did a great post on it: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ If you do read Wikipedia, always do two things: 1) Read the Talk page 2) Go to the history and read the same article from 2005 ~ 2010
  - ashleshbiradar 6y ago
    lol, dude, the criticism is mostly from authoritarian countries, China, Iran, Russia, or countries that violate human rights, Sri Lanka(the entire issue with tamils), or US(Guantánamo Bay).
- naruvimama 6y ago
  The Indian government is answerable to the people, Amnesty International is answerable to the government, the courts and perhaps its "donors". There is a robust system for the former, not so much for the later. AI can complain all it wants but they are just bringing in more scrutiny into their activities.
sumedh 6y ago
> only focusing on what they believe is right. So what is "right" as per your belief?
dang 6y ago
Yes, it was one of the worst flamewars I've ever seen on HN. What a wreck. We've banned several accounts and will probably moderate more aggressively next time.

ashleshbiradar 6y ago

this post is from a reputed source, I see no reason why it should be taken down. As far as I am concerned, this is not a subjective thing, the crack down on Amnesty International in the country is not subject to individual opinions.

malware7 6y ago
It just happens that the "reputed source" itself is under question for source of their funding. What you consider reputed is your opinion, not a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_Internati...
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Wikipedia is not a good source for anything remotely controversial at this time. One of the founders did a great post on it: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ If you do read Wikipedia, always do two things: 1) Read the Talk page 2) Go to the history and read the same article from 2005 ~ 2010
- ashleshbiradar 6y ago
  lol, dude, the criticism is mostly from authoritarian countries, China, Iran, Russia, or countries that violate human rights, Sri Lanka(the entire issue with tamils), or US(Guantánamo Bay).
naruvimama 6y ago
The Indian government is answerable to the people, Amnesty International is answerable to the government, the courts and perhaps its "donors". There is a robust system for the former, not so much for the later. AI can complain all it wants but they are just bringing in more scrutiny into their activities.

sumedh 6y ago

> only focusing on what they believe is right. So what is "right" as per your belief?

dang 6y ago

Yes, it was one of the worst flamewars I've ever seen on HN. What a wreck. We've banned several accounts and will probably moderate more aggressively next time.