4 ms·

Think about it. If people have the wrong information, that means that they cannot respond meaningfully. If you are swimming in a world of lies, how will you g

Think about it. If people have the wrong information, that means that they cannot respond meaningfully. If you are swimming in a world of lies, how will you give the correct answer? UPDATE/EDIT And, in other conspiracy news, I am unable to reply to comments below. "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." This will probably prevent me from replying for a few hours (last time it was 3 hours). Understandably, people will think I'm flaky and unable to defend my position, where I am happy to have a meaningful interaction and share a different point of view. Ask yourself, should I be able to say what I have said, in a free society? Did you think HN wasn't part of the problem?

shadowgovt 6y ago
If you're swimming in a world of lies, how do you feed yourself? Because not through government; they don't want that job. What do you imagine government's goal to be? Especially in a country like the US where half the elected are trying to shrink it? People believing lies led to a mob storming the US Congress. Do you think the goal of the people in government was to get lynched by a mob? (I use hacker news because it is moderated. That's not part of the problem)
- feralimal 6y ago
  How do I feed myself? I don't know what you mean. Government's goal is to implement whatever governance is decided to be best to manage people. You say a mob stormed congress. I saw a dramatic event, that justifies a lot of authoritarian actions to be undertaken on others. Including de-platforming the president! Isn't that amazing? Other dramatic events are perfectly fine, of course, such as the BLM protests. Why is that? The answer for me is that some protests suit the governance agenda, and some don't. A message needs to be given to indicate rightthink and wrongthink. I think you must believe that the government (lights, camera) 'action' you see on TV are far more than a simple soap opera intended to distract you. Perhaps you believe that one side is 'good' and the other 'bad'. If that's it, you are falling for the good cop/bad cop routine, and being sold down the river by both sides. (I don't mind moderation - but what we have on HN is no room for free thinking, consensus opinion wins the day. Was I really posting too much, was I undertaking a DDOS attack? Or was my opinion, if reasoned, unpopular and not to be heard. Let me know.)
Guvante 6y ago
You got caught by the spam filter dude. No conspiracy here.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Its not a spam filter. I am not posting too fast in trying to reply to responses. The reason I am blocked is because my opinions are not popular and they are downvoted. This is the issue: HN is an echo chamber. Those who can downvote (those with 500+ upvotes) can downvote others and maintain the echo chamber. A function of the design is to take away the right of reply from those whose opinion they do not like.
  - Guvante 6y ago
    It is probably a spam filter, downvotes are an imperfect proxy for post quality. Tons of low quality posts is a form of spam. You don't have to be posting links to things you want to sell to be spamming. No offense to you but typically there isn't a ton of value to someones posts that are repeatedly downvoted. They tend to be repetitive. I didn't look at yours so am not making a judgement on your statements but instead on others I have seen. So an algorithm to slow down posts of that kind make sense even if it isn't perfect. No one sees a post with a huge number of replies and assumes that since not every reply is replied back the person gave up. It is generally known that keeping up is hard when you are outnumbered. You should keep that in mind and focus your efforts. If you get a bunch of replies focus on the upvoted ones first since then your reply will be more prominent as well. Ensure you aren't repeating your points, while some people carpet bomb replies most only do that when they are substantially similar. On the topic of the post I replied to you got caught by several reasons for downvotes: * Spreading a conspiracy. You emphatically say that those in power are lying. * Providing no evidence or even examples really. You have to back up extreme rhetoric with robust supporting evidence. You didn't provide any. * Bad place to make a stand. You chose to complain about overbearing tech companies on a topic about Twitter stopping people calling for the death of the VP. Direct calls for violence are agreed to be bad for everyone so using it as a jumping board for overbearing tech companies is a bad idea. * You finally used yourself as the example of overbearing tech companies. Never ever do this. You are incredibly biased about your own actions. You understand why you are taking them and give yourself immense benefit of the doubt. Using a literal spam filter as an example of what is wrong with tech because you personally got caught by it is a fundamentally flawed argument. You are incapable of reasonably inspecting the quality of your own posts. Finally your original post is woefully ignorant. No one can know whether the election was stolen based on their own knowledge. No man is an island I believe is the phrase. The actual information required to prove that without a doubt is impossible to obtain. You need to have the data summarized to stand a chance. So by saying "acting on stuff that you don't know" after making it obvious you don't believe in secondary sources you are showing that you are making a fundamentally flawed argument.

shadowgovt 6y ago

If you're swimming in a world of lies, how do you feed yourself? Because not through government; they don't want that job. What do you imagine government's goal to be? Especially in a country like the US where half the elected are trying to shrink it? People believing lies led to a mob storming the US Congress. Do you think the goal of the people in government was to get lynched by a mob? (I use hacker news because it is moderated. That's not part of the problem)

feralimal 6y ago
How do I feed myself? I don't know what you mean. Government's goal is to implement whatever governance is decided to be best to manage people. You say a mob stormed congress. I saw a dramatic event, that justifies a lot of authoritarian actions to be undertaken on others. Including de-platforming the president! Isn't that amazing? Other dramatic events are perfectly fine, of course, such as the BLM protests. Why is that? The answer for me is that some protests suit the governance agenda, and some don't. A message needs to be given to indicate rightthink and wrongthink. I think you must believe that the government (lights, camera) 'action' you see on TV are far more than a simple soap opera intended to distract you. Perhaps you believe that one side is 'good' and the other 'bad'. If that's it, you are falling for the good cop/bad cop routine, and being sold down the river by both sides. (I don't mind moderation - but what we have on HN is no room for free thinking, consensus opinion wins the day. Was I really posting too much, was I undertaking a DDOS attack? Or was my opinion, if reasoned, unpopular and not to be heard. Let me know.)

Guvante 6y ago

You got caught by the spam filter dude. No conspiracy here.

feralimal 6y ago
Its not a spam filter. I am not posting too fast in trying to reply to responses. The reason I am blocked is because my opinions are not popular and they are downvoted. This is the issue: HN is an echo chamber. Those who can downvote (those with 500+ upvotes) can downvote others and maintain the echo chamber. A function of the design is to take away the right of reply from those whose opinion they do not like.
- Guvante 6y ago
  It is probably a spam filter, downvotes are an imperfect proxy for post quality. Tons of low quality posts is a form of spam. You don't have to be posting links to things you want to sell to be spamming. No offense to you but typically there isn't a ton of value to someones posts that are repeatedly downvoted. They tend to be repetitive. I didn't look at yours so am not making a judgement on your statements but instead on others I have seen. So an algorithm to slow down posts of that kind make sense even if it isn't perfect. No one sees a post with a huge number of replies and assumes that since not every reply is replied back the person gave up. It is generally known that keeping up is hard when you are outnumbered. You should keep that in mind and focus your efforts. If you get a bunch of replies focus on the upvoted ones first since then your reply will be more prominent as well. Ensure you aren't repeating your points, while some people carpet bomb replies most only do that when they are substantially similar. On the topic of the post I replied to you got caught by several reasons for downvotes: * Spreading a conspiracy. You emphatically say that those in power are lying. * Providing no evidence or even examples really. You have to back up extreme rhetoric with robust supporting evidence. You didn't provide any. * Bad place to make a stand. You chose to complain about overbearing tech companies on a topic about Twitter stopping people calling for the death of the VP. Direct calls for violence are agreed to be bad for everyone so using it as a jumping board for overbearing tech companies is a bad idea. * You finally used yourself as the example of overbearing tech companies. Never ever do this. You are incredibly biased about your own actions. You understand why you are taking them and give yourself immense benefit of the doubt. Using a literal spam filter as an example of what is wrong with tech because you personally got caught by it is a fundamentally flawed argument. You are incapable of reasonably inspecting the quality of your own posts. Finally your original post is woefully ignorant. No one can know whether the election was stolen based on their own knowledge. No man is an island I believe is the phrase. The actual information required to prove that without a doubt is impossible to obtain. You need to have the data summarized to stand a chance. So by saying "acting on stuff that you don't know" after making it obvious you don't believe in secondary sources you are showing that you are making a fundamentally flawed argument.