6 ms·

Who knew the man was a savant. The man had, word for word, given a concise description if the internet platforms in 2021 and the last 5-6 years. With a few no

Who knew the man was a savant. The man had, word for word, given a concise description if the internet platforms in 2021 and the last 5-6 years. With a few notable exceptions, such as HN, a different opinion/worldview is wholly unacceptable. The power of these platforms to silence dissent would have probably made the likes of Joseph Goebels salivate and smack his lips in approval.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
You think Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was prescient? Try George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans). Or maybe it's that human society doesn't change as quickly as our technological innovations make it feel, so accurate observations about the present tend to hold true centuries after they're made.
- evgen 5y ago
  The other alternative is that Solzhinitsyn and Eliot had their heads so far up their own asses that they imagined any rebuke or slight as a sure sign of the end of days for civilization when in fact it was not. You could fill entire libraries with the books and articles written by notable (at the time) intellectuals who all decry the state of the current world, blame it all on 'fashion' (as opposed to their own firmly deduced logical conclusions that no one should dare to question), and tell everyone else that we are already tumbling quickly down the slippery slope to some undesirable end state. It must be terrifying for people like this (and those in this same thread trying to make statements from the late 70s sound like prescient warnings for the 2020s) to see the world turning away from their writings or simply deciding that they were not as important or significant as society once thought. When the crowd goes one way and you desperately want it to follow in the direction you are trying to lead it must be quite frightening and depressing.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I don't think either of these people wrote or talked about the end days of civilisation.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    > The other alternative is that Solzhinitsyn and Eliot had their heads so far up their own asses that they imagined any rebuke or slight as a sure sign of the end of days for civilization when in fact it was not. Plato does this too. Was his head also up his ass? Anyway, he was right, no? He was writing at the end of the Classical period. The truth is just that there's a constant struggle between past and future, tradition and innovation, and to go all in on one side or the other (which is what we are all drawn to) is insane. Pointing out the downsides of innovation is not wrong unless you're arguing for doing away with it altogether.
    - matthewdgreen 5y ago
      Speeches like these occur in all eras of history, including both the waxing and waning phases of powerful civilizations. It’s about as novel as an old man complaining about “kids these days.” If you discount that factor: these sentiments are also a pretty normal reaction to any society that has experienced substantial improvements in the average person’s well-being within the speaker’s lifetime. If you’ve watched your country emerge from pre-industrial poverty, then of course your forebears are going to seem (in retrospect) powerful and resilient to harsh conditions, while your contemporaries are going to appear relatively soft and materialistic. That doesn’t necessarily mean you want such people leading you into the future. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn‘s late-life endorsement of Putin shows the peril in that.
karolist 5y ago
"exceptions, such as HN", you really don't think there's a hivemind here? Or are you censoring yourself in fear of downvotes, precisely as per OP. There are many ways to get to top of HN, few examples: write a rehashed "Kubernetes sucks" article. Write anything about Rust. Write an article criticizing Google. Write an article about how webdev is "wrong" nowadays. Etc. Etc. Etc.
- christophilus 5y ago
  I see contrarian opinions all the time on HN. This is a fairly libertarian place. There is plenty of groupthink, but there are pro/con opinions of just about every thread posted here.
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  Nope. I have plenty of downvotes but HN really does have a better incidence of open discussion unless someone is obviously giving an answer that's not thought out or off-topic with unneccesary hostility adding no value to the discussion (like a racial slur) Not to say there isnt a hivemind, there is but conversation rarely disintergrates into mindless name-calling. There is space to disagree. And anecdotally I tend to disagree with a lot of things but I've never been banned/silenced.
  - mancerayder 5y ago
    I think the 'hivemind' stuff is a bit overstated, but there are a few areas where, given the topic, you have a high chance of being downvoted even if you provide a rational, non-personal, non-offensive, and careful opinion. This is just what I've witnessed based on the article-type that I click on and observe the commentariat (I'm sure there are many other topics): - If the article is about Bitcoin or crypto and there are a large number of people talking about externalities. If someone says something that's perceived as being not in line, it's getting heavily downvoted. - If the article is about the stock market and there are a large number of people who are recommending index fund dollar-cost averaging. Someone says they picked stocks. Bye-bye, comment font contrast against the background. Greyed. Those grey comments are probably mine in this example. - If the article is about a recent event around a cancellation such as a firing or a conversation around misinformation, anything perceived as questioning that (such as using the word censorship in the comment) has a near-guarantee of downvotes. There is no way to ever come to the defense of someone who said something that has been deemed misinformation, a conspiracy theory, or such, without being associated with the cancelled. It's almost dangerous to even opine at this point if you have feelings around freedom of speech. Note: I'm not talking about the opinion itself, but the right to air it, and coming to defense of that. It's poorly received. - Criticisms of Google, curiously, and I've seen Facebook as well (although I think Facebook fell out of favor in the last few years). I have a theory about many employees coming to the defense of their employer out of loyalty. There are probably many other examples of dangerous topics that provoke the group. I think there is something in people's mind that lets them justify this as follows: "If you question the popular wisdom here, when you have a group saying A, and you say B, you must be a troll out to provoke people."
kayodelycaon 5y ago
> With a few notable exceptions, such as HN, a different opinion/worldview is wholly unacceptable I don’t see any difference on Hacker News. Dang does an amazing job moderating and people are somewhat more civil to each other and more curious on average but the culture here strongly weeds out people who are not comfortable with aggressively stated opinions. I like it here but Hacker News has a culture that suits the people who come here. Only approved non-conformity is tolerated. This is true of every community, to pretend otherwise is kind of silly in my opinion.
- batch12 5y ago
  I would argue that instead of approved nonconformity it is polite nonconformity that is tolerated. Some people self-censor out of fear of disagreement downvotes, but I see all kinds of opinions and that is why I come here. I also think we see what we want in a lot of dialog. Either folks look for opposition and find it or they seek out likeminded opinions and find that too. Its not that there is a central culture here, it is that there are so many differing opinions that you can perceive the site however you choose.
watwut 5y ago
Solzhinitsyn is fairly authoritarian and pro-Putin. It is odd too talk about him as if he would be pro freedom and free speach. He is not.
cafard 5y ago
Meh. Don't like CNN/NY Times? There's always Fox News/Reason/The Federalist. Your voice isn't heard at Harvard? Well, there's Hillandale College and others. It would be hard to find a point of view that can't be found in print or on line today.
- robomartin 5y ago
  You make it sound like there’s an ideological 50/50 ratio in US media. This isn’t even close to the truth. The ratio is likely closer to 90/10, if not worse. Simple example: A huge portion of the US population has no clue of the tragedy unfolding at the US/Mexico border. Why? Because the media is actively suppressing coverage. If they don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist. Out of all the reporters in the White House briefing room, only one asks questions about this, and the answers are a study in political avoidance. Did you know kids are being found dead on a regular basis? Drowned, dehydrated in the desert, etc. And, of course, girls are being molested, abused, raped and trafficked. No, this didn’t come from Fox News. We watch the Hispanic new networks every morning. They are reporting some of this on a daily basis. Just a couple of days ago they found four little girls in the desert, one if them thought dead and later survived. These events alone should be reason for mass demonstrations against the abject incompetence and callousness of current border policies. And yet, because of the overwhelming alignment of the media with the current ideological bend, the death and suffering continues. Had this happened during the last four years you would have 24/7 coverage of the carnage, including live helicopter video of dead kids in the desert. That’s how bad it is. This is precisely what the quoted portion of Solzhenitsyn‘s speech was referring to. I understand his frustration. Having come from a place where military rule controlled it all, it is disheartening to see the US in the grips of ideology through a less centralized mechanism. This society is supposed to be “free” and yet people are afraid to speak up because their lives or livelihoods are at very real risk. This is sad to watch.
  - licebmi__at__ 5y ago
    Is this happening on a different scale? Because I have heard/read about this happening since I was a kid, and I meant hearing tales from my uncles who did cross the border illegally, and certainly don’t remember anything other than the rhetoric about kids in cages by liberals and the “build the wall” chants by conservatives during Trump’s administration. I meant I could be wrong, but given the historical disinterest that the media has shown about the border drama, I would imagine this is more the same apathy than a concerted effort to suppress coverage, and I would in fact argue that the sudden interest by conservative media is only because this is something that can be blamed on Biden.
lawnchair_larry 5y ago
HN is definitely not an exception.
user-the-name 5y ago
HN is very much a very close-minded bubble with very strongly held, specific and quite weird ideologies that you are definitely not allowed to break. It is far more insular than most social media.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

You think Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was prescient? Try George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans). Or maybe it's that human society doesn't change as quickly as our technological innovations make it feel, so accurate observations about the present tend to hold true centuries after they're made.

evgen 5y ago
The other alternative is that Solzhinitsyn and Eliot had their heads so far up their own asses that they imagined any rebuke or slight as a sure sign of the end of days for civilization when in fact it was not. You could fill entire libraries with the books and articles written by notable (at the time) intellectuals who all decry the state of the current world, blame it all on 'fashion' (as opposed to their own firmly deduced logical conclusions that no one should dare to question), and tell everyone else that we are already tumbling quickly down the slippery slope to some undesirable end state. It must be terrifying for people like this (and those in this same thread trying to make statements from the late 70s sound like prescient warnings for the 2020s) to see the world turning away from their writings or simply deciding that they were not as important or significant as society once thought. When the crowd goes one way and you desperately want it to follow in the direction you are trying to lead it must be quite frightening and depressing.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I don't think either of these people wrote or talked about the end days of civilisation.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > The other alternative is that Solzhinitsyn and Eliot had their heads so far up their own asses that they imagined any rebuke or slight as a sure sign of the end of days for civilization when in fact it was not. Plato does this too. Was his head also up his ass? Anyway, he was right, no? He was writing at the end of the Classical period. The truth is just that there's a constant struggle between past and future, tradition and innovation, and to go all in on one side or the other (which is what we are all drawn to) is insane. Pointing out the downsides of innovation is not wrong unless you're arguing for doing away with it altogether.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    Speeches like these occur in all eras of history, including both the waxing and waning phases of powerful civilizations. It’s about as novel as an old man complaining about “kids these days.” If you discount that factor: these sentiments are also a pretty normal reaction to any society that has experienced substantial improvements in the average person’s well-being within the speaker’s lifetime. If you’ve watched your country emerge from pre-industrial poverty, then of course your forebears are going to seem (in retrospect) powerful and resilient to harsh conditions, while your contemporaries are going to appear relatively soft and materialistic. That doesn’t necessarily mean you want such people leading you into the future. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn‘s late-life endorsement of Putin shows the peril in that.

karolist 5y ago

"exceptions, such as HN", you really don't think there's a hivemind here? Or are you censoring yourself in fear of downvotes, precisely as per OP. There are many ways to get to top of HN, few examples: write a rehashed "Kubernetes sucks" article. Write anything about Rust. Write an article criticizing Google. Write an article about how webdev is "wrong" nowadays. Etc. Etc. Etc.

christophilus 5y ago
I see contrarian opinions all the time on HN. This is a fairly libertarian place. There is plenty of groupthink, but there are pro/con opinions of just about every thread posted here.
vagrantJin 5y ago
Nope. I have plenty of downvotes but HN really does have a better incidence of open discussion unless someone is obviously giving an answer that's not thought out or off-topic with unneccesary hostility adding no value to the discussion (like a racial slur) Not to say there isnt a hivemind, there is but conversation rarely disintergrates into mindless name-calling. There is space to disagree. And anecdotally I tend to disagree with a lot of things but I've never been banned/silenced.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  I think the 'hivemind' stuff is a bit overstated, but there are a few areas where, given the topic, you have a high chance of being downvoted even if you provide a rational, non-personal, non-offensive, and careful opinion. This is just what I've witnessed based on the article-type that I click on and observe the commentariat (I'm sure there are many other topics): - If the article is about Bitcoin or crypto and there are a large number of people talking about externalities. If someone says something that's perceived as being not in line, it's getting heavily downvoted. - If the article is about the stock market and there are a large number of people who are recommending index fund dollar-cost averaging. Someone says they picked stocks. Bye-bye, comment font contrast against the background. Greyed. Those grey comments are probably mine in this example. - If the article is about a recent event around a cancellation such as a firing or a conversation around misinformation, anything perceived as questioning that (such as using the word censorship in the comment) has a near-guarantee of downvotes. There is no way to ever come to the defense of someone who said something that has been deemed misinformation, a conspiracy theory, or such, without being associated with the cancelled. It's almost dangerous to even opine at this point if you have feelings around freedom of speech. Note: I'm not talking about the opinion itself, but the right to air it, and coming to defense of that. It's poorly received. - Criticisms of Google, curiously, and I've seen Facebook as well (although I think Facebook fell out of favor in the last few years). I have a theory about many employees coming to the defense of their employer out of loyalty. There are probably many other examples of dangerous topics that provoke the group. I think there is something in people's mind that lets them justify this as follows: "If you question the popular wisdom here, when you have a group saying A, and you say B, you must be a troll out to provoke people."

kayodelycaon 5y ago

> With a few notable exceptions, such as HN, a different opinion/worldview is wholly unacceptable I don’t see any difference on Hacker News. Dang does an amazing job moderating and people are somewhat more civil to each other and more curious on average but the culture here strongly weeds out people who are not comfortable with aggressively stated opinions. I like it here but Hacker News has a culture that suits the people who come here. Only approved non-conformity is tolerated. This is true of every community, to pretend otherwise is kind of silly in my opinion.

batch12 5y ago
I would argue that instead of approved nonconformity it is polite nonconformity that is tolerated. Some people self-censor out of fear of disagreement downvotes, but I see all kinds of opinions and that is why I come here. I also think we see what we want in a lot of dialog. Either folks look for opposition and find it or they seek out likeminded opinions and find that too. Its not that there is a central culture here, it is that there are so many differing opinions that you can perceive the site however you choose.

watwut 5y ago

Solzhinitsyn is fairly authoritarian and pro-Putin. It is odd too talk about him as if he would be pro freedom and free speach. He is not.

cafard 5y ago

Meh. Don't like CNN/NY Times? There's always Fox News/Reason/The Federalist. Your voice isn't heard at Harvard? Well, there's Hillandale College and others. It would be hard to find a point of view that can't be found in print or on line today.

robomartin 5y ago
You make it sound like there’s an ideological 50/50 ratio in US media. This isn’t even close to the truth. The ratio is likely closer to 90/10, if not worse. Simple example: A huge portion of the US population has no clue of the tragedy unfolding at the US/Mexico border. Why? Because the media is actively suppressing coverage. If they don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist. Out of all the reporters in the White House briefing room, only one asks questions about this, and the answers are a study in political avoidance. Did you know kids are being found dead on a regular basis? Drowned, dehydrated in the desert, etc. And, of course, girls are being molested, abused, raped and trafficked. No, this didn’t come from Fox News. We watch the Hispanic new networks every morning. They are reporting some of this on a daily basis. Just a couple of days ago they found four little girls in the desert, one if them thought dead and later survived. These events alone should be reason for mass demonstrations against the abject incompetence and callousness of current border policies. And yet, because of the overwhelming alignment of the media with the current ideological bend, the death and suffering continues. Had this happened during the last four years you would have 24/7 coverage of the carnage, including live helicopter video of dead kids in the desert. That’s how bad it is. This is precisely what the quoted portion of Solzhenitsyn‘s speech was referring to. I understand his frustration. Having come from a place where military rule controlled it all, it is disheartening to see the US in the grips of ideology through a less centralized mechanism. This society is supposed to be “free” and yet people are afraid to speak up because their lives or livelihoods are at very real risk. This is sad to watch.
- licebmi__at__ 5y ago
  Is this happening on a different scale? Because I have heard/read about this happening since I was a kid, and I meant hearing tales from my uncles who did cross the border illegally, and certainly don’t remember anything other than the rhetoric about kids in cages by liberals and the “build the wall” chants by conservatives during Trump’s administration. I meant I could be wrong, but given the historical disinterest that the media has shown about the border drama, I would imagine this is more the same apathy than a concerted effort to suppress coverage, and I would in fact argue that the sudden interest by conservative media is only because this is something that can be blamed on Biden.

lawnchair_larry 5y ago

HN is definitely not an exception.

user-the-name 5y ago

HN is very much a very close-minded bubble with very strongly held, specific and quite weird ideologies that you are definitely not allowed to break. It is far more insular than most social media.