3 ms·
That’s great, but it didn’t answer the question. Next time “passionate” supporters of racism post an anti-affirmative action screed, or “passionate” supporters
by iron0013 6y ago
That’s great, but it didn’t answer the question. Next time “passionate” supporters of racism post an anti-affirmative action screed, or “passionate” supporters of the “anti cancel culture” movement post some incoherent mess about how they should be allowed to say repulsive things but no one should be allowed to talk back to them, or “passionate” supporters of the president post a link to a tabloid story containing some barely-above-Q-level conspiracy theory targeting the president’s enemies, are you going to replace the links to these stories with more “neutral” sources like you’ve or here? Because you haven’t in the past.
- dang 6y agoI tried to answer your question by explaining how its premise is untrue, but perhaps that wasn't clear enough. If you're asking me whether we do the same kind of moderation on baity right-wing sources, the answer is of course, we do that all the time. If you're asking whether we'll do that on every future article that you might see as opposing your political beliefs, probably not. How we make these calls depends on the article. For sure we make some of them wrong, but you seem to want us to change the entire system by which we make them, and I've explained above why that would be bad. The main thing, though, is that your question doesn't feel like a question. To me it feels like you're trying to conscript me into political battle for a position I don't occupy to begin with. HN commenters who feel strongly on any topic (not just politics) sometimes make stories in which, for whatever reason, I, or rather "dang", gets cast as the enemy. That's a job hazard and inevitable, but those stories are not mine and that's not me.